I 


iiiliii 


iliii 


^8  8% 


The  Legislative  History  of  Naturalization 
in  the  United  States 


The  Legislative   History  of 

Naturalization  in  the 

United  States 

From  the  Revolutionary  War  to  1861 


By 

FRANK  GEORGE  FRANKLIN,  Ph.D. 

Professor  of  History  and  Political  Science  in  the 
University  of  the  Pacific 


Chicago 
THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 


COPTKIGHT  1906  By 
The  University  of  Chicago 


Published  June  1906 


Cointiosod  ani  Priiited  Ry 

The  University  of  Chicago  Press 

Chicago,  Illinois,  U.S.A. 


TO  VIOLA  PRICE  FRANKLIN 

IN  APPRECIATION   OF   HER  HELP   AND   INSPIR-'XTION 


1539  i 24 


PREFACE 

The  subject  of  naturalization  has  assumed  a 
larger  importance  in  the  history  of  the  United 
States  than  in  that  of  any  other  nation.  In  this 
study  I  have  sought  to  exhibit  the  course  of 
opinion  thereon  chiefly  as  it  manifested  itself  in 
discussion,  reports,  and  legislation  at  the  central 
forum  of  American  political  life. 

The  sources  of  information  are  sufficiently  in- 
dicated. In  large  measure  I  have  let  men  speak 
for  themselves.  Some  latitude  of  expression  has 
been  allowed  in  indirect  quotation,  in  the  effort 
to  preserve  the  flavor  of  the  original  utterance. 

I  am  indebted  to  Professor  Frederick  J.  Turn- 
er, of  the  University  of  Wisconsin,  for  much 
helpful  suggestion  and  criticism  upon  the  earlier 
part  of  the  work.  I  desire  to  mention  Professors 
Hermann  Edouard  von  Hoist  and  Benjamin  S. 
Terry,  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  because  of 
inspiration  that  came  from  them.  The  work  was 
begun  with  the  encouraging  approval  of  Dr.  von 
Hoist,  and  in  anticipation  of  his  invaluable  criti- 
cism of  which  his  sickness  and  death  deprived  me. 
The  exceptional  facilities  of  the  library  of  the 
Wisconsin  State  Historical  Society  have  lightened 
my  task.  The  abundant  courtesy  of  its  officials 
calls  for  appreciative  acknowledgment. 

F.  G.  F. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I.    The  Revolutionary  Period i 

II.    The  Convention  of  1787 19 

III.  The  Act  of  1790 2;^ 

IV.  The  Act  of  1795 49 

V.    The  Act  of  1798 72 

VI.     The  Act  of  1802 97 

VII.    The  Act  of  1813 117 

VIII.    An  Act  Concerning  Evidence 129 

IX.    Expatriation 134 

X.    The  Act  of  1824 167 

XI.    The  Beginnings  of  Native  Americanism  .  184 

XII.    The   Period   of  Aggressive  Native 

Americanism 215 

XIII.  The  Period  of  Aggressive  Native 

Americanism  {continued^ 247 

XIV.  The  Know-Nothing  Period       278 


Bibliography 
Index  .    .    . 


301 
307 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  REVOLUTIONARY  PERIOD 
The  Declaration  of  Independence  declared 
the  right  of  the  people  to  establish  a  new  gov- 
ernment. Yet  earlier  the  Continental  Con- 
gress had  exercised  authority  to  declare  cer- 
tain Tories  to  be  out  of  the  protection  of  the 
United  States,  and  had  ordered  that  any  per- 
son refusing  its  bills  should  be  deemed  an 
enemy  of  his  country  and  be  refused  all  inter- 
course with  the  inhabitants  of  the  colonies.^ 
The  early  continental  congresses  required 
no  oath  from  even  their  members.  Soldiers  at 
enlistment  merely  declared  that  they  had 
voluntarily  enlisted  and  did  bind  themselves 
to  conform  to  the  rules  for  the  government  of 
the  army.  Late  in  1776  they  were  sworn  "to 
be  true  to  the  United  States  of  America  and 
to  serve  them  honestly  and  faithfully."  *  Con- 
gress early  resolved  "that  no  oath  by  way 
of  test  be  ...  .  required  of  any  of  the 
inhabitants  of  these  colonies,  by  any  military 
officers."  ^  A  law  of  January  3,  1776,  required 
certain    officers    of    the    government,    chiefly 

^Journals  of  Congress,   II,  8,   ai;  January    ii,    1776. 
'Ibid..   I.   118;   II.   367. 
•Ibid..   II,  88. 

I 


2         NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

those  in  charge  of  funds  and  supplies,  to  take 
an  oath  truly  and  faithfully  to  discharge  their 
duties.^  Congress  later  "^  established  an  oath 
for  all  officers  in  the  continental  service  and 
for  all  holding  civil  office  from  Congress,  as 
follows : 

I do  acknowledge  the  Thirteen  United  States  of 

America,  namely,  .  .  .  .  ,  to  be  free,  independent  and 
sovereign  states,  and  declare  that  the  people  thereof  owe 
no  allegiance  or  obedience  to  George  the  Third,  King  of 
Great  Britain;  and  I  renounce,  refuse,  and  abjure  any 
allegiance  or  obedience  to  him :  and  I  do  swear  that  I  will 
to  the  utmost  of  my  power  support,  maintain  and  defend 
the  said  United  States  against  the  said  King  George,  etc.* 

Even  before  the  adoption  of  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence  the  Continental  Con- 
gress defined  the  citizenship  of  the  colonies. 
It  resolved,  June  6,  1776,  while  considering  a 
report  of  its  Committee  on  Spies,  "that  all  per- 
sons abiding  within  any  of  the  United  Col- 
onies and  deriving  protection  from  the  laws 
of  the  same  owe  allegiance  to  the  said  laws, 
and  are  members  of  such  colony."  Persons 
only  temporarily  in  a  colony  were  declared  to 
owe  allegiance  to  it  during  their  temporary 
stay,  and  it  was  made  treason  for  such  to  levy 
war.^ 

1  op.  cit.,  I,  187. 

"  October   21,    1776;    February   3,    1778. 

'Journals    of    Congress,    II,    426.      January    16,    1777,    Congress 
ordered   that   the  oath   of  fidelity   be  published    (ibid.,   Ill,    20). 
'  Ibid.,    II,    229. 


REVOLUTIONARY   PERIOD  3 

Hamilton  accepted  this  position,  and  de- 
veloped its  application  to  those  who  had  been 
within  the  British  lines  during  the  war,  and 
to  Tories  generally,  in  his  Letters  from  Pho- 
cion,  written  in  1784.  In  opposition  to  pro- 
posed New  York  legislation  hostile  to 
Tories,  he  pleaded  both  their  legal  status  and 
their  treaty  rights.  The  treaty,  he  held,  for- 
bade attainting  individuals  for  war  crimes,  and 
for  the  state  to  disfranchise  or  punish  whole 
classes  of  its  citizens  by  general  descriptions 
and  without  a  trial  was  tyranny.  To  say,  on 
the  other  hand,  that  by  espousing  the  cause  of 
Great  Britain  the  Tories  became  aliens,  and 
that  it  would  satisfy  the  treaty  to  confine 
them  to  the  privileges  of  aliens,  was  to  admit 
that  subjects  might  at  pleasure  renounce 
their  allegiance  to  the  state  of  which  they 
were  members  and  devote  themselves  to  a 
foreign  jurisdiction.  That  was  a  principle  con- 
trary to  law,  and  subversive  of  government; 
also  it  would  lead  to  forfeiture  of  property  by 
a  fraudulent  subterfuge  that  was  more  odious 
than  an  open  violation  of  the  treaty.  The 
state  could  not  deprive  a  citizen  of  his  right 
without  an  offense  ascertained  by  a  trial,  and 
the  treaty  forbade  prosecution  and  trial. 

The  idea  of  suflfering  the  Tories  to  live  among  us  under 
disqualifications  is  equally  mischievous  and  absurd.     It  is 


4         NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

necessitating  a  large  body  of  citizens  in  the  State  to  con- 
tinue enemies  to  the  government. 

By  the  Declaration  of  Independence,  acceded 
to  by  the  New  York  convention,  July  9,  1776, 

the  late  colony  of  New  York  became  an  independent  state. 
All  the  inhabitants  who  were  subjects  under  the  former 
government,  and  who  did  not  withdraw  themselves  upon 
the  change  which  took  place,  were  to  be  considered  as 
citizens  owing  allegiance  to  the  new  government.  This,  at 
least,  is  the  legal  presumption ;  and  this  was  the  principle 
in  fact,  upon  which  all  the  measures  of  our  public  councils 
have  been  grounded.' 

Thus,  according  to  Hamilton,  residents  of 
New  York,  formerly  British  citizens,  had  the 
opportunity  of  making  choice  of  American  or 
British  citizenship  immediately  after  July  9, 
1776.  By  choosing  the  latter  they  chose  to 
become  alien  enemies  in  the  place  of  their 
residence,  and  were  under  the  necessity  of 
withdrawing  from  the  state.  Persons  who  re- 
mained were,  and  continued  to  be,  American 
citizens,  although  the  fortunes  of  war  later 
left  them  within  the  enemy's  lines,  where  they 
owed  a  temporary  and  qualified  obedience, 
and  although  they  took  voluntary  part  with 
the  enemy  and  became  traitors  thereby.  He 
held  that  the  idea  of  citizens  transforming 
themselves  into  aliens  by  taking  part  against 
their  state  was  altogether  unknown  and  in- 
admissible. 

•  Lodge,    Works    of   Alexander   Hamilton,    III,    449-70. 


REVOLUTIONARY   PERIOD  5 

Bancroft  states  the  theory  of  citizenship 
resulting  from  the  Declaration  of  Indepen- 
dence thus:  He  that  had  owed  primary  al- 
legiance to  Great  Britain  now  owed  primary 
allegiance  to  the  United  States,  but  it  was  no 
treason  to  adhere  to-  the  king's  government. 
Yet  those  who  chose  to  remain  on  the  soil,  by 
residence  accepted  the  protection  of  the  new 
government,  and  have  owed  it  allegiance.  He 
adds  that  this  was  why  for  twelve  years  in 
American  state  papers  "free  inhabitants"  and 
"citizens"  were  convertible  terms,  either  or  l)oth 
being  used.® 

During  the  Revolutionary  War  repeated 
efforts  were  made  to  detach  the  foreign  ele- 
ment from  the  British  army  by  offers  of  land 
and  citizenship.  First,  in  August,  1776,  Con- 
gress adopted  the  report  of  a  committee  to 
devise  plans  for  encouraging  the  Hessians 
and  other  foreigners  to  quit  the  British  ser- 
vice.   They  declared  it  to  have  been 

the  wise  policy  of  these  states  to  extend  the  protection  of 
their  laws  to  all  those  who  should  settle  among-  them  of 
whatever  nation  or  religion  they  might  be  and  to  admit 
them  to  a  participation  of  the  benefits  of  civil  and  religious 
freedom. 

They  asserted  that  the  "benevolence"  and 
"salutary  effects"  of  this  practice  advo- 
cated  its   continuance.      They   resolved   that 

"  Bancroft,   History   of  the   United  States,   V,   200. 


6         NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

these  states  will  receive  all  such  foreigners  who  shall  leave 
the  armies  [of  England]  ....  and  shall  chuse  to  become 
members  of  any  of  these  states ;  and  they  shall  be  ...  . 
invested  with  the  rights,  privileges  and  immunities  of 
natives  as  established  by  the  laws  of  these  states. 

Each  of  them  should  be  given  fifty  acres  of 
land.  A  little  later  (August  27,  1776)  they 
resolved  to  give  lands,  proportioned  in 
amount  to  their  rank,  to  foreign  officers  that 
should  leave  the  British  army  "and  chuse  to 
become  citizens  of  these  states."  Again,  two 
years  later  (April  15,  1778),  they  said  to  such 
foreign  ofificers  and  soldiers:  "We  are  willing 
to  receive  you  with  open  arms  into  the  bosom 
of  our  country."  ^^ 

Jefferson,  as  governor  of  Virginia,  issued 
a  proclamation,  February  2,  1781,  in  which  he 
recited  the  offer  of  Congress  of  fifty  acres  of 
land  to  foreigners  who  should  leave  the 
British  army  "and  should  chuse  to  become 
members  of  any  of  these  states."  He  had 
thought  fit,  by  and  with  the  advice  of  his 
council,  to  make  more  generally  known  that 
engagement  of  Congress,  and  to  promise  fur- 
ther "to  all  such  Foreigners  who  shall  leave 
the  armies  of  his  Britannic  Majesty  while  in 
this  state,  and  repair  forthwith  to  me  at  this 
place,"  that  he  should  recommend  the  further 

^"Journals  of  Congress,  II,  310,  330;  Secret  Journals  of  Con- 
gress,   I,    70. 


REVOLUTIONARY  PERIOD  7 

donation  to  each  of  two  cows,  and  their  ex- 
emption, during  the  existing  war  and  their 
continuance  in  the  state,  from  all  taxes  for  the 
support  of  the  war,  and  from  military  ser- 
vice.^ ^ 

Opinions  vary  as  to  the  result  of  these 
overtures.  Of  29,867  Germans  sent  to  Amer- 
ica, 12,554  were  not  returned  at  the  end  of  the 
war.  It  is  estimated  that  five  thousand  of 
these  had  deserted,  largely  while  prisoners  of 
war.  Some  of  them  were  enlisted  in  the 
American  army  against  the  wishes  of  Wash- 
ington. German  writers  claim  that  the  Ger- 
mans deserted  less  freely  than  did  the  Eng- 
lish soldiers. ^^  The  Gloucester  (Eng. )  Journal 
of  November  10,  1783,  in  a  dispatch  of  Sep- 
tember 10,  from  Kingston,  Jamaica,  relates 
that  four  thousand  British  prisoners  of  war 
were  received  in  New  York  from  Philadelphia, 

among  whom  were  about  seven  hundred  Germans,  all  that 
could  be  found  out  of  nine  thousand  of  those  people,  who 
have  been  made  prisoners  by  the  Americans  in  the  course 
of  the  war ;  the  remainder  have  dispersed  themselves  in 
the  dififerent  provinces,  and  have  been  naturalized  by  Con- 
gress," in  order  to  forward  the  manufactures,  agriculture, 
and  population  of  their  extensive  territories. 

After  making  allowance  for  escaping  prisoners, 
and  for  deaths  from  wounds  and  disease,  per- 

'^''-  Ford,   Writings  of  Jefferson,   II,   445. 

^^  Lowell,   The  Hessians  in  the  Revolution,  285,  290,   291,  300. 

^*  This,   of  course,   is  a  mistake. 


8         NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

haps  this  estimate  of  the  number  of  deserters 
does  not  vary  greatly  from  the  former  one. 

Other  acts  of  Congress  include  a  provision 
for  passports  to  certain  inhabitants  of  New 
Providence  certifying  their  fidelity  "and  de- 
sign to  remove  ....  to  .... 
states  ....  with  intent  to  become  sub- 
ject to  the  same;"^^  a  recommendation  to 
Maryland  to  assemble  the  inhabitants  in  cer- 
tain counties  on  an  appointed  day  and  take  the 
oath  of  allegiance  required  by  the  state,  dis- 
arming all  that  refused  it;^^  a  recommenda- 
tion to  New  York  to  receive  as  citizens  certain 
Canadian  and  other  refugees  (eighty  men  and 
women  besides  children)  who  had  petitioned 
Congress  from  Fishkill,  N.  Y.  ;^^  a  resolution  to 
confirm  their  possessions  to  French  settlers  at 
Post  St.  Vincents  (Vincennes,  Ind.)  who  be- 
fore 1783  "had  professed  themselves  citizens 
of  the  United  States  or  any  of  them."  ^"^ 

A  remarkable  proposition  is  contained  in 
a  letter  from  John  Adams  at  Paris  to  the  pres- 
ident of  Congress,  as  follows : 

There  is  another  point  of  very  great  importance,  which 
I  am  persuaded  will  be  aimed  at  by  the  English  ministers; 
I  am  sure  it  will  be  by  the  people  of  England,  whenever 

1*  Secret  Journals  of  Congress,   I,   87;  August   17,   1778. 
^^  Journals    of   Congress,    III,    36;    February    i,    1777. 
^*  Ibid.,    VIII,    236;    August  9,    1783. 
^''  Ibid.,  XIII,  91. 


REVOLUTIONARY  PERIOD  9 

terms  of  peace  shall  be  talked.  For  facilitating  the  return 
of  commerce  they  will  wish  to  have  it  stipulated  by  the 
treaty,  that  the  subjects  of  Great  Britain  shall  have  the 
rights  of  citizens  in  America,  and  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  the  rights  of  subjects  in  the  British  dominions. 
Some  of  the  consequences  of  such  an  agreement  to  them 
and  to  us  are  obvious  and  very  important;  but  they  are  so 
numerous,  and  it  is  so  difficult  to  determine  whether  the 
benefits  or  inconveniences  prevail,  that  I  should  be  sorry  to 
have  so  great  a  question  left  to  my  determination." 

The  same  result  was  sought  in  1794  by 
Lord  Loughborough  (the  former  V/edder- 
burn,  now  lord  chancellor)  in  a  proposal  ''that 
in  either  country,  the  subjects  or  citizens  of 
the  other  shall  be  exempted  from  all  the  disabili- 
ties of  alienage."  John  Quincy  Adams  wrote 
of  this  in  his  diary : 

The  article  proposed  by  Lord  Loughborough,  the  chan- 
cellor, is  certainly  extremely  liberal ;  although  Mr.  Jay 
thinks  it  best  to  leave  it  as  a  subject  for  future  considera- 
tion  Such  an  Article  would  certainly  tend  to  pro- 
mote the  friendly  intercourse  between  the  Nations ;  and  I 
do  not  know  that  it  could  produce  any  material  incon- 
venience to  either.  But  it  would  be  necessary  to  have  an 
Act  of  Parliament  to  confirm  the  stipulation  here,  which, 
his  Lordship  says,  may  be  obtained  without  difficulty.  A 
more  material  obstacle  arises  from  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States,  with  one  clause  of  which  such  an  article 
would  certainly  militate. 

The  provision  referred  to  is  doubtless  that 
giving  to  Congress  the  power  of  establishing 

I'John  Adams,   Works,  VII,   136;  March  24,    1780. 


lo      NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

a  uniform  rule  of  naturalization.  That  this 
is  the  case  is  shown  by  the  comment  of  Adams 
upon  the  Louisiana  Purchase.  He  regarded 
it  as  abolishing  the  Constitution  by  treaty, 
and  one  of  his  counts  against  it  was:  "It  nat- 
uralizes foreign  nations  in  a  mass."  ^^  Adams 
saw  in  this  proposition  support  for  Loughbor- 
ough's professions  of  very  friendly  disposi- 
tion toward  the  United  States,  although  he 
had  been  known  as  a  conspicuous  opponent 
of  America  during  the  Revolution,^^ 

There  is  a  reference  to  a  part  of  the  same 
question  in  an  interview  in  1817  between 
Adams  as  minister  to  England  and  Hamilton, 
a  British  under-secretary  of  state,  in  regard 
to  a  claim  for  inheritance  of  land.  Hamilton 
had  said  that  he  found  great  difficulty  in  ad- 
mitting a  whole  nation,  eight  millions  of  for- 
eigners, to  all  the  privileges  of  British  sub- 
jects without  having  any  claim  upon  their 
allegiance.  Adams  replied  that  the 
mere  privilege  of  holding  lands  would  never,  in  the  present 
condition  of  the  world,  have  consequences  important  to 
either  government,  and  there  was  something  very  harsh  in 
stripping  individuals  of  their  estates  on  the  mere  ground  of 
alienage." 

This  remarkable  proposal  has  been  revived 
in  England  in  recent  years.  Professor  Dicey, 

^'  J.   Q.  Adams,  Memoirs,  V,   400. 

*"  Ibid.,  I,  49;   October  22,    1794.  *^  Ibid.,   iii,    5:3. 


REVOLUTIONARY   PERIOD  H 

of  the  chair  of  English  law  at  Oxford  Univer- 
sity, in  a  notable  lecture  at  All  Souls  College, 
while  the  arbitration  treaty  between  the 
United  States  and  England  was  before  the 
United  States  Senate,  earnestly  advocated  a 
common  citizenship  for  British  and  Amer- 
icans. He  designed  nothing  in  the  least  re- 
sembling political  unity ;  but  would  merely 
have  every  American  citizen,  on  landing  at 
Liverpool,  occupy  the  same  position  as  to 
civil  and  political  rights  as  the  inhabitant  of 
Victoria  who  might  land  from  the  same  boat; 
and  an  Englishman,  on  landing  in  America, 
should  enjoy  the  same  civil  and  political  rights 
as  an  American  born  and  reared  abroad  who 
might  first  land  there  at  the  same  time.  The 
plan  was  wholly  feasible.  The  practical  ef- 
fects would  be  comparatively  small,  but 
wholly  good.  The  indirect  and  moral  effects 
would  be  greatly  beneficial.  The  alien  al- 
ready possessed  in  both  countries  nearly  all 
the  civil  rights  of  citizens.  The  political 
status  of  the  American  when  in  England 
would  become  precisely  that  of  his  grand- 
father, who  was  a  citizen  of  New  York,  or 
Massachusetts,  and  a  subject  of  the  crown. 
He  might  vote,  sit  in  Parliament  or  in  the 
cabinet,  and  even  aspire  to  the  House  of 
Lords.    The  dubious  advantages  of  American 


12       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

restrictions  on  naturalization  were  not  v/orth 
weighing  against  the  serious  advantages  of  a 
common  citizenship.^^ 

FrankHn's  sketch  of  Articles  of  Confedera- 
tion of  May  lo,  1775,  contains  no  reference  to 
citizenship.^^  This  is  because  independence 
was  not  yet  planned  for.  The  draft  of  August 
12,  1776,  shortly  after  the  declaration,  is  in 
Dickinson's  handwriting.  Arts.  VI  and  VIT 
provide  that  the  inhabitants  of  each  colony 
shall  always  enjoy  the  same  rights,  liberties, 
privileges,  immunities,  and  advantages  in  the 
other  colonies  that  they  nozv  have,  except  as 
those  rights  are  [may  be]  limited  by  the  fur- 
ther provision  that  the  inhabitants  of  each 
colony  shall  enjoy  [only]  all  rights  of  local 
and  foreign  trade  in  any  other  colony  that  the 
natives  of  such  other  colony  enjoy.  This  re- 
served to  each  colony  the  privilege  of  enfor- 
cing upon  the  inhabitants  of  the  other  colonies 
such  restrictions  upon  trade  rights  as  it  might 
propose  for  its  own  members.^^  With  the 
matter  thus  before  them,  it  is  strange  that 
the  draft  of  the  committee  of  the  whole  (Au- 
gust 20,  1776)  contains  no  reference  to  the 
subject. ^^  Ten  weeks  later  Congress  added 
the  provision  that 

'*  New  York  Nation,  LXIV,    198,   Correspondence  from  Oxford. 
*•  Secret  Journals  of  Congress,    I,   283. 
*♦  Ibid.,   I,  292.  "  Ibid.,   I,   304. 


REVOLUTIONARY  PERIOD  13 

the  free  inhabitants  of  each  of  these  states,  paupers,  vaga- 
bonds, and  fugitives  from  justice  excepted,  shall  be  entitled 
to  all  privileges  and  immunities  of  free  citizens  in  the 
respective  states ;  and  the  people  of  each  state  shall  have 
free   ingress   and   regress   to   and   from   any   other   state; 

and  enjoy  the  same  trade  privileges  as  the  in- 
habitants. The  final  text  contained  this 
amendment  with  the  word  "respective" 
changed  to  "several;"  and  reads  as  follows: 

Art.  IV.  The  better  to  secure  and  perpetuate  mutual 
friendship  and  intercourse  among  the  people  of  the  United 
States  in  this  Union,  the  free  inhabitants  of  each  of  these 
States,  paupers,  vagabonds,  and  fugitives  from  justice 
excepted,  shall  be  entitled  to  all  privileges  and  immunities 
of  free  citizens  in  the  several  States,  and  the  people  of  each 
State  shall  have  free  ingress  and  regress  to  and  from  any 
other  State,  and  shall  enjoy  therein  all  the  privileges  of 
trade  and  commerce,  subject  to  the  same  duties,  impositions 
and  restrictions  as  the  inhabitants  thereof  respectively, 
provided  that  such  restrictions  shall  not  extend  so  far  as 
to  prevent  the  removal  of  property  imported  into  any  State, 
to  any  other  State  of  which  the  owner  is  an  inhabitant ; 
provided  also,  that  no  imposition,  duties,  or  restriction 
shall  be  laid  by  any  State,  on  the  property  of  the  United 
States,  or  either  of  them. 

Among  a  number  of  points  in  a  representa- 
tion of  the  Legislature  of  New  Jersey  to  Con- 
gress on  the  Articles  of  Confederation  is  the 
objection  that  there  is  no  oath  or  test  to  the 
general  government  required  of  the  members 
of  the  Congress.  Such  an  oath  they  thought 
to  be  necessary.  The  Confederation  Congress, 


14       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

however,  defeated  a  motion  to  amend  the  arti- 
cles in  accordance  with  this  representation. 
Only  three  states  were  for  it,  six  were  against 
it,  and  one  was  divided. ^^ 

Madison  said  in  The  Federalist: 

The  dissimilarity  in  the  rules  of  naturalization  has  long 
been  remarked  as  a  fault  in  our  system,  and  as  laying  a 
foundation  for  intricate  and  delicate  questions. 

After  quoting  from  the  fourth  article  of  the 
Confederation,   he   continues: 

There  is  a  confusion  of  language  here,  which  is 
remarkable.  Why  the  terms  free  inhabitants  are  used  in 
one  part  of  the  article,  free  citizen  in  another,  and  people  in 
another ;  or  what  was  meant  by  superadding  to  "  all  privi- 
leges and  immunities  of  free  citizens,"  "  all  the  privileges  of 
trade  and  commerce,"  cannot  easily  be  determined.  It 
seems  to  be  a  construction  scarcely  avoidable,  however,  that 
those  who  come  under  the  denomination  of  free  inhabitants 
of  a  state,  although  not  citizens  of  such  a  state,  are  entitled, 
in  every  other  state,  to  all  the  privileges  of  free  citizens 
of  the  latter;  that  is,  to  greater  privileges  than  they  may 
be  entitled  to  in  their  own  state :  so  that  it  may  be  in  the 
power  of  a  particular  State,  or  rather  every  state  is  laid 
under  a  necessity,  not  only  to  confer  the  rights  of  citizen- 
ship in  other  States  upon  any  whom  it  may  admit  to  such 
rights  within  itself,  but  upon  any  whom  it  may  allow  to 
become  inhabitants  within  its  jurisdiction.  But  were  an 
exposition  of  the  term  "  inhabitants  "  to  be  admitted  which 
would  confine  the  stipulated  privileges  to  citizens  alone,  the 
difficulty  is  diminished  only,  not  removed.  The  very  im- 
proper power  would   still   be   retained   by  each    State,   of 

««  Elliott's   Debates.    I,    87. 


REVOLUTIONARY   PERIOD  1$ 

naturalizing  aliens  in  every  other  State.  In  one  State, 
residence  for  a  short  term  confirms  all  the  rights  of  citizen- 
ship; in  another,  qualifications  of  greater  importance  are 
required.  An  alien,  therefore,  legally  incapacitated  for  cer- 
tain rights  in  the  latter,  may,  by  previous  residence  only  in 
the  former,  elude  his  incapacity ;  and  thus  the  law  of  one 
State  be  preposterously  rendered  paramount  to  the  law  of 
another,  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  other.  We  owe  it 
to  mere  casualty,  that  very  serious  embarrassments  on  this 
subject  have  been  hitherto  escaped.  By  the  laws  of  several 
States,  certain  descriptions  of  aliens,  who  had  rendered 
themselves  obnoxious,  were  laid  under  interdicts  incon- 
sistent not  only  with  the  rights  of  citizenship  but  with  the 
privilege  of  residence.  What  would  have  been  the  conse- 
quence, if  such  persons,  by  residence  or  otherwise,  had 
acquired  the  character  of  citizens  under  the  laws  of  another 
State,  and  then  asserted  their  rights  as  such,  both  to  resi- 
dence and  citizenship,  within  the  State  proscribing  them? 
Whatever  the  legal  consequences  might  have  been,  other 
consequences  would  probably  have  resulted,  of  too  serious 
a  nature  not  to  be  provided  against.  The  new  Constitu- 
tion has  accordingly,  with  great  propriety,  made  provision 
against  them,  and  all  others  proceeding  from  the  defect  of 
the  Confederation  on  this  head,  by  authorizing  the  general 
government  to  establish  a  uniform  rule  of  naturalization 
throughout  the  United  States.^^ 

Bancroft  found  in  "intercitizenship  and 
mutual  equality  of  rights"  of  all  members  in 
the  Confederation  "a  new  character  and  an 
enduring  unity,"  not  found  before  in  federa- 
tions. Congress  had  at  first  defined  only  the 
membership  of  each  colony.     The  Articles  of 

*''  The  Federalist,  No.  XLII.  Compare  with  the  view  of  Ban- 
croft, p.  5. 


i6       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

Confederation  brought  in  the  rule  that  mem- 
bership might  be  transferred  from  one  state 
to  another.^^  While  there  is  here  doubtless 
the  original  expression  of  this  character  by 
the  lawmaking  body  common  to  the  new 
union,  and  is  perhaps  a  new  quality  in  federa- 
tions, yet  there  must  be  taken  into  account 
the  earlier  common  English  citizenship  of  the 
great  majority  of  the  members  of  the  Confed- 
eration, and  the  common  rights  that  it  in- 
volved. Those,  whether  continued  or  not 
throughout  the  preliminary  states  of  their 
combination,  must  have  done  much  to  render 
intercitizenship  in  the  federation  inevitable. 
In  other  words,  if  here  is  a  new  character 
in  federations,  it  is  because  this  is  a  fed- 
eration born  out  of  conditions  to  which  the 
new  character  was  fundamental.  The  inter- 
citizenship of  naturalized  citizens  was,  on  the 
other  hand,  not  a  matter  of  course.  There  is 
little  to  show  that  their  status  in  this  respect 
had  been  worked  out  generally  in  either  the 
colonial  or  the  revolutionary  period.  Colo- 
nial naturalization  was  usually  limited  in  its 
benefits,  by  explicit  provision,  to  the  colony 
naturalizing.  This  restriction  was  not  made 
with  reference  to  rights  in  other  colonies.  It 
merely  marked  the  limit  of  power  under  the 

**  Bancroft,   History  of  the  Constitution   of  the   United  States, 
I.   ii8. 


REVOLUTIONARY   PERIOD  17 

colony's  charter,  the  act  of  13  Geo.  2,  or  the 
veto  power  of  governor  and  crow^n.  England 
did  not  permit  colonies  to  create  English  citi- 
zens, and  often  restrained  them  in  the  making 
of  colonial  citizens.  A  Virginian  who  was  an 
Englishman,  upon  settling  in  Maryland,  be- 
came  a  Marylander.  There  was  no  necessity 
for  this  result  if  he  was  a  foreigner. 

There  is  a  case  of  naturalization,  in  the 
colonial  period,  first  by  Virginia  and  later  by 
Maryland ;  and  it  seems  probable  from  the 
record  that  the  results  of  the  Virginia  nat- 
uralization were  lost  by  the  subsequent  pro- 
ceedings in  Maryland.  At  any  rate,  the  Vir- 
ginia lands  of  one  Dr.  George  Hacke,  who  was 
naturalized  in  Virginia  in  1653,  ^^^^  again  in 
Maryland  in  1663,  are  said  to  have  escheated 
at  his  death,  and  were  regranted  to  his  heirs, 
because  he  was  a  foreigner.^^  But,  with  the 
common  tie  one  of  their  own  formation,  the 
rather  anomalous  condition  that  some  of  the 
citizens  of  one  state  should,  and  others  should 
not,  require  naturalization  upon  removing 
to  another  state  would  naturally  be  done  away 
with. 

The  transfer  of  citizenship  from  state  to 
state  provided  for  by  the  Articles  of  Confed- 
eration very  soon  led  to  complaints  due  to  the 

*•  Virginia  Historical  Magasine,  V,  256. 


i8       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

easy  naturalization  laws  of  some  of  the  states. 
Edmund  Randolph,  writing  to  Madison,  made 
suggestions  with  reference  to  the  intrusion 
of  obnoxious  aliens  through  other  states. 
Madison  replied  (August  27,  1782)  that  his 
hints  merited  attention,  and  that  the  subject 
had  been  several  times  mentioned  in  Con- 
gress. He  believed  that  no  committee  had 
ever  reported  a  remedy  for  the  abuse,  but 
thought  that  a  uniform  rule  of  naturalization 
ought  certainly  to  be  recommended  to  the 
states.  Their  individual  authority  seemed,  if 
properly  executed,  to  be  competent  to  the 
case  of  their  own  citizens.^*'  Many  years 
later  in  his  introduction  to  the  debates  in  the 
convention,  he  wrote : 

Among  the  defects  which  had  been  severely  felt  was 
want  of  an  uniformity  in  cases  requiring  it,  as  laws  of 
naturalization  and  bankruptcy.'^ 

^"Madison  Papers,  I,  i6i.  This  seems  to  mean  that  states 
may  be  left  to  control  state,  as  distinguished  from  federal,  citi- 
zenship. 

»i  Ibid.,   II,  712. 


CHAPTER  II 
THE  CONVENTION  OF  1787 

In  the  proceedings  of  the  Constitutional 
Convention  of  1787  we  look  for  any  traces  of 
a  new  citizenship.  The  first  of  these  is  in  the 
resolutions  offered  by  Randolph  on  May  29. 
His  sixth  resolution, 

that  the  national  legislature  ought  to  be  empowered  .... 
to  legislate  in  all  cases  to  which  the  separate  states  are 
incompetent,  or  in  which  the  harmony  of  the  United  States 
may  be  interrupted  by  the  exercise  of  individual  legislation, 

read  in  the  light  of  the  foregoing  correspon- 
dence between  Madison  and  Randolph,  and 
the  later  proceedings  of  the  convention,  must 
be  thought  to  comprehend  consciously  the 
subject  in  hand.  His  fourteenth  resolution, 
that  the  legislative,  executive  and  judiciary  powers,  within 
the  several  states,  ought  to  be  bound,  by  oath,  to  support 
the  articles  of  union, 

is  a  step  toward  recognition  of  a  new  citizen- 
ship that  met  with  considerable  opposition.^ 
That  they  contain  nothing  more  strengthens 
the  probability  that  resolution  6  was  seen  to 
be  sufficiently  inclusive  to  provide  for  federal 
naturalization.^     These   provisions   were   un- 

^  Elliott's  Debates,   I,   408;   Madison    Papers,   V,    i82f. 
•  Elliott's  Debates,   I,    143. 

19 


20      NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

changed  in  the  resolutions  as  amended  and 
agreed  to  in  committee  of  the  whole  house 
on  June  19. 

Meanwhile  (June  15)  Patterson's  proposi- 
tions were  introduced  and  referred  to  a  com- 
mittee of  the  whole  house,  and  they  were  de- 
bated the  following  day.  The  sixth  of  these 
was  identical  with  Randolph's  fourteenth  res- 
olution.   The  tenth  was: 

Resolved,  That  the  rule  for  naturalization  ought  to  be 
the  same  in  every  state.' 

Pinckney's  plan,  long  discredited,  but  re- 
cently in  large  measure  rehabilitated,  contains 
nearly  everything  bearing  on  citizenship  and 
naturalization  that  found  place  in  the  final  draft. 
A  later  compromise  plan  communicated  by  Ran- 
dolph to  Madison  July  10,  but  not  introduced  be- 
cause the  smaller  states  had  succeeded  in  getting 
an  equal  vote  in  all  cases  in  the  Senate,  proposed 
that  each  state  should  have  one  vote  in  that 
branch  in  thirteen  specified  cases,  one  of  which 
was: 

In  regulating  the  rights  to  be  enjoyed  by  citizens  of 
one  state  in  the  other  states.* 

Randolph's  sixth  and  fourteenth  resolu- 
tions were  respectively  the  sixth  and  the 
twentieth  of  the  twenty-three  resolutions  ap- 

3  op.  cii,,l,  177. 

*  Madison    Papers,    II,    mo;    III,    Appendix,    p.    vii. 


CONVENTION  OF  1787  21 

proved  by  the  convention  and  referred  to  the 
Committee  of  Detail.  Patterson's  and  Pinck- 
ney's  resolutions  v^ere  also  laid  before  this 
committee. 

The  growth  of  the  ideas  that  were  em- 
bodied in  the  Constitution  is  to  be  studied 
further  in  the  draft  reported  by  this  commit- 
tee, in  the  revised  draft  made  by  the  conven- 
tion, in  the  final  form  as  reported  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Style,  and  in  the  available  reports 
of  the  proceedings  and  debates  of  the  conven- 
tion. I  shall  trace  to  its  outcome  each  pro- 
vision of  the  committee's  draft  that  seems  to 
require  notice.  The  first  of  these  leaves  the 
qualifications  for  the  federal  suffrage  to  be  de- 
termined by  the  several  states,  requiring  only 
that  they  be  the  same  as  shall  be  established 
for  electors  to  the  lower  branch  of  each  state 
legislature.  An  effort  to  strike  out  the  phrase 
by  which  "electors"  was  limited  received  the 
vote  of  Delaware  only,  probably  because  the 
change  would  tend  to  restrict  a  state  to  only 
one  class  of  electors.  The  section  passed 
unanimously  as  reported,  and  was  not 
changed  later. 

Art.  IV,  sec.  2,  read: 

Every  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives  .... 
shall  have  been  a  citizen  in  the  United  States  for  at  least 
three  years  before  his  election. 


22       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

"Citizen  in"  was  changed  to  "citizen  of."  Vari- 
ous motions  were  made  as  to  the  number 
of  years  of  citizenship  to  be  required  to  qual- 
ify a  representative.  "Seven  years"  was  in- 
serted in  place  of  "three  years,"  with  only 
Connecticut  opposing.  "Three  years"  was 
lost  by  a  vote  of  2  to  9.  A  motion  for  one 
year  was  lost,  and  the  clause  passed  unani- 
mously.^ Some  days  later  (August  13),  ex- 
tended discussion  upon  the  term  of  citizen- 
ship to  be  required  for  senator  having  inter- 
vened, reconsideration  was  had.  Wilson  and 
Randolph  moved  to  strike  out  "seven  years" 
and  insert  "four  years"  as  the  requisite  term 
of  citizenship  to  qualify  for  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives. Wilson  thought  it  very  proper 
for  the  electors  to  require  seven  years,  but 
unnecessary  and  improper  that  the  Constitu- 
tion should  chain  them  down  to  it.  Gerry 
wished  that  in  future  eligibility  might  be  con- 
fined to  natives.  Foreign  powers  would  in- 
termeddle and  spend  vast  sums  in  secret  ser- 
vice and  in  influencing  the  government.  Wil- 
liamson moved  to  require  nine  years  of  citi- 
zenship. 

Hamilton  was  in  general  against  embar- 
rassing the  government  by  minute  restric- 
tions.    He  proposed  an  amendment  requiring 

*  Elliott's  Debates,    I,    224,    232. 


CONVENTION  OF  1787  23 

only  citizenship  and  inhabitancy.  This  would 
leave  discretion  to  Congress,  and  answer 
every  purpose.  Madison,  seconding  the 
amendment,  said  that  he  wished  to  maintain 
a  professed  character  of  liberality,  and  to  in- 
vite foreigners  of  merit  and  republican  prin- 
ciples. America  was  indebted  to  immigra- 
tion, and  had  advanced  most  rapidly  where  it 
was  most  encouraged.  There  was  a  possible 
danger  in  offite,  but  it  was  by  no  means  prob- 
able in  any  dangerous  degree.  The  people 
would  prefer  natives.  Wilson  cited  the  rapid 
growth  of  Pennsylvania  to  a  place  among  the 
foremost  in  population  and  prosperity  as 
proof  of  the  advantage  of  encouraging  immi- 
gration. Almost  all  of  her  general  officers  in 
the  Revolution  were  foreigners,  and  no  com- 
plaint arose.  Three  of  her  deputies  in  this 
convention  were  not  natives.  He  had  no  ob- 
jection to  Hamilton's  motion,  and  withdrew 
his  own.  Butler  was  strenuous  against  for- 
eigners in  our  councils.  The  vote  on  Hamil- 
ton's amendment  was:  ayes,  4  (Conn.,  Penn., 
Md.,  Va.) ;  noes,  7  (N.  H.,  Mass.,  N.  J.,  Del., 
N,  C,  S.  C,  Ga.).  On  nine  years  the  vote 
stood:  ayes,  3  (N.  H.,  S.  C,  Ga.),  and  noes, 
8.  Wilson  renewed  his  motion  for  four  years. 
It  secured  the  votes  of  Conn.,  Md.,  and  Va. 
An     amendment     by     Gouvemeur     Morris 


24      NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

Opened  up  a  new  field  for  debate.  He  pro- 
posed the  following: 

Provided  always,  that  the  above  limitation  of  seven 
years  shall  not  be  construed  to  afifect  the  rights  of  those 
who  are  now  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

Mercer,  in  seconding  this,  said  that  it  was 
necessary  to  prevent  putting  any  who  had  be- 
come citizens  below  the  level  of  natives.  Rut- 
ledge  thought  that  it  might  as  well  be  said 
that  all  qualifications  are  disfranchisements, 
including  the  age  qualification  of  twenty-five 
years.  The  policy  of  the  precaution  was  as 
great  for  those  now  citizens  as  for  those  to  be- 
come so. 

Sherman  held  that  the  United  States  had 
not  pledged  equal  privileges  by  invitations. 
Only  individual  states  had  done  this.  The 
United  States  were  free  to  discriminate  as 
they  should  judge  it  to  be  requisite.  Gorham 
doubted  the  propriety  of  a  retrospective  re- 
striction. When  foreigners  were  naturalized, 
it  would  seem  as  if  they  stood  on  an  equal 
footing  with  natives. 

Madison  found  in  the  peculiar  doctrine  of 
Sherman  a  subtlety  by  which  every  national 
engagement  might  be  evaded.  Who  but  the 
states  were  to  form  the  new  Constitution? 
If  it  violated  pledged  faith,  the  states  would 
be  violators.     Every  state  would  be  exposed 


CONVENTION  OF  1787  2$ 

to  reproach,  and  reduced  to  the  dilemma  of 
rejecting  the  Constitution,  or  of  violating  the 
faith  pledged  to  a  part  of  its  citizens.  Gouv- 
erneur  Morris  denied  that  any  pledge  had  been 
made  to  persons  under  twenty-five  years,  but 
faith  had  been  pledged  that  foreigners  should 
enjoy  the  privileges  of  citizens.  Pinckney  as- 
serted that  the  laws  of  the  states  varied  much 
as  to  naturalization,  and  that  the  United 
States  could  not  be  bound  to  respect  them  on 
such  an  occasion  as  this,  when  there  was  a 
sort  of  recurrence  to  first  principles.  Mason, 
too,  was  struck  by  the  propriety,  not  the  pe- 
culiarity, of  Sherman's  doctrine.  There  was 
need  of  greater  caution  at  the  beginning  of 
the  government,  or  there  might  be  pernicious 
consequences  in  the  commercial  regulations. 
Wilson  found  in  the  provision  of  the  Penn- 
sylvania constitution,  giving  "all  the  rights 
whatsoever  of  citizens"  to  foreigners  after 
two  years'  residence,  together  with  the  pro- 
vision of  the  Articles  of  Confederation  that 
citizens  of  one  state  should  be  citizens  of  all, 
an  obligation  resting  upon  Pennsylvania  to 
maintain  the  faith  thus  pledged  to  her  for- 
eign-born citizens,  and  held  that  her  failure 
would  authorize  just  complaint.  Foreign 
powers  would  use  such  breach  of  faith  to  deter 
their  subjects  from  emigrating  to  the  United 


26       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

States.  Mercer  had  the  same  idea.  Baldwin 
still  thought  that  discrimination  as  to  birth 
was  no  more  objectionable  than  that  of  age, 
in  the  propriety  of  which  all  had  concurred. 
The  vote  resulted:  ayes,  5  (Conn.,  N.  J., 
Penn.,  Md.,  and  Va.)  ;  noes,  6  (N.  H.,  Mass., 
Del.,  N.  C,  S.  C,  Ga.).  A  motion  to  insert 
five  years  for  seven  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  3 
to  7.  The  principle  involved  was  that  of 
greater  privileges  to  foreigners,  and  the  vote 
was  as  the  preceding  one,  except  that  New 
Jersey  now  went  with  the  majority  and  Penn- 
sylvania divided.  The  section  was  then 
agreed  to  unanimously  as  amended,  and  had 
attained  its  final  form.^ 

I  return  now  to  consider  the  term  of  citi- 
zenship to  be  required  of  a  senator.  This 
was  four  years  in  the  report  of  the  Committee 
of  Detail.  Gouverneur  Morris  moved  to 
change  to  fourteen  years,  and  urged  the  dan- 
ger of  admitting  strangers  to  the  public  coun- 
cils. Pinckney  seconded  the  amendment  and 
urged  the  treaty  power  of  the  Senate  against 
a  short  term  qualification.  There  was  pe- 
culiar danger  and  impropriety  in  opening  the 
Senate's  door  to  those  who  had  foreign  at- 
tachments. Mason  highly  approved  the  pol- 
icy of  the  motion.     Except  for  the  revolution- 

*  Elliott's  Debates,   I,   240;  Madison  Papers,   III,    1299-130*. 


CONVENTION  OF  1787  27 

ary  deeds  of  many,  he  would  favor  limiting 
eligibility  to  the  Senate  to  natives. 

Ellsworth  opposed  thus  discouraging  meri- 
torious aliens  from  emigrating  to  this  country. 
Madison  could  never  agree  to  the  proposed 
amendment.  He  was  not  averse  to  some  re- 
strictions on  this  subject,  but  any  restriction 
in  the  Constitution  was  unnecessary  and  im- 
proper. It  was  unnecessary  because  Con- 
gress was  to  regulate  naturalization  and 
could  require  different  periods  of  residence 
for  the  different  privileges  of  citizenship.  It 
was  improper  because  it  would  give  a  tincture 
of  illiberality  to  the  Constitution  ;  because  it 
would  prevent  Congress,  even  by  special  acts, 
from  conferring  the  full  rank  of  citizens  on 
meritorious  strangers ;  and  would  discourage 
the  most  desirable  class  of  people  from  emi- 
grating to  the  United  States.  With  a  stable 
and  reputable  government  established,  great 
numbers  of  respectable,  liberty-loving  Euro- 
peans would  be  ready  to  transfer  their  for- 
tunes hither.  Such  persons,  though  not 
coveting  public  honors,  would  be  mortified 
by  incapacity.  He  did  not  apprehend  that 
the  state  legislatures,  even  if  left  at  liberty  to 
do  so,  would  choose  any  dangerous  number 
of  strangers ;  nor  that  foreign  powers  would 
use   strangers   as    instruments    of   their   pur- 


28       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

poses.  Their  bribes  would  be  expended  on 
men  whose  circumstances  would  rather  stifle 
than  excite  jealousy  and  watchfulness. 

Butler  was  decidedly  opposed  to  admitting 
foreigners  till  after  long  residence.  They 
brought  foreign  attachments  and  different 
ideas  of  government,  and  were  in  every 
point  of  view  dangerous.  He  himself  would 
have  been  improper  in  public  life  till  long 
after  coming  here.  Franklin  was  not  opposed 
to  a  reasonable  residence  requirement,  but 
would  be  very  sorry  to  see  anything  like  il- 
liberality  inserted  in  the  Constitution.  The 
people  of  Europe  and  many  in  England  were 
our  friends.  Many  strangers  served  us  faith- 
fully in  war,  while  many  natives  fought 
against  us.  Foreigners  in  choosing  this  coun- 
try and  coming  here  gave  a  proof  of  attach- 
ment which  ought  to  excite  confidence  and 
affection. 

Randolph  thought  that  it  might  be  prob- 
lematical whether  emigrants  were,  on  the 
whole,  useful  or  not,  but  he  could  never  agree 
to  disable  them  from  public  honors  for  four- 
teen years.  Many  were  here  on  the  faith  of 
invitations,  and  would  be  made  hostile.  He 
would  go  as  far  as  seven  years,  but  no  farther. 
Wilson  mentioned  that  some  of  the  ideas  ad- 
vanced  might   exclude   himself,   although   he 


CONVENTION  OF   1787  29 

shared  in  making  the  Constitution.  Legal 
incapacity  produced  chagrin  and  mortifica- 
tion, even  when  one  did  not  desire  office. 

Gouverneur  Morris  closed  the  debate  by 
urging  that  they  should  govern  themselves 
by  reason  and  not  by  feelings,  and  not  be  po- 
lite at  the  expense  of  prudence.  Foreigners 
would  enjoy  great  privileges  without  office. 
He  would  not  trust  philosophical  citizens  of 
the  world.  The  men  who  could  shake  of¥  at- 
tachments to  their  own  country  could  never 
love  another.  They  had  no  means  of  know- 
ing what  legislatures  would  do.  The  vote  on 
his  motion  to  insert  "fourteen  years"  for  "four 
years"  was:  ayes,  4  (N.  H.,  N.  J.,  S.  C,  Ga.)  ; 
noes,  7  (Mass.,  Conn.,  Penn.,  Del.,  Md.,  Va..  N. 
C).  Votes  on  thirteen  and  ten  years  each  re- 
sulted the  same. 

Franklin  reminded  the  convention  again 
that  omitting  a  restriction  from  the  Constitu- 
tion did  not  remove  restrictions.  Rutledge 
said  that  surely  a  longer  term  of  citizenship 
was  required  for  a  seat  in  the  Senate,  with  its 
greater  power,  than  for  a  seat  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  where  seven  years  had  been 
required.  Williamson  thought  it  more  neces- 
sary to  guard  the  Senate,  as  bribery  and 
cabal  would  be  easier  in  the  electing  legisla- 
tures.    Randolph  would  agree  to  nine  years, 


30       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

expecting  a  reduction  to  seven  years,  if  a  mo- 
tion to  reconsider  the  term  for  the  House  of 
Representatives  should  reduce  it.  Delaware 
and  Virginia  changed  to  the  restrictive  side, 
North  Carolina  divided,  and  the  proposition 
for  nine  years  carried  6  to  4.  The  section  as 
amended  was  agreed  to  neni.  con.,  and  passed 
through  the  later  stages  without  change/ 

Art.  VII,  sec.  i  of  the  report  of  the 
Committee  of  Detail  contained  the  following: 

The  legislature  of  the  United  States  shall  have  the 
power  ....  3.  To  establish  a  uniform  rule  of  naturaliza- 
tion throughout  the  United  States. 

Clauses  1-8  of  this  section  passed  in  the  af- 
firmative. Madison  reports  that  there  was 
only  one  vote  cast  against  clause  i,  that  clause 

2  passed  nem.  con.,  and  that  clauses  4,  5,  and 
6  were  agreed  to  nem.  con.     Apparently  clause 

3  (as  above)  passed  without  important  com- 
ment, and  with  slight,  if  any,  opposition.^ 
The  Committee  on  Style  changed  "a  uniform 
rule"  to  "an  uniform  rule,"  a  change  not  ap- 
proved today.^ 

The  report  under  consideration  contained 
no  age  or  birth  qualification  for  President. 
On  September  4  a  special  Compromise  Com- 
mittee  of   one   member   from   each   state,   to 

''Elliott's   Debates,    I,   235;    Madison   Papers,    III,    1273-76. 

*  Elliott's   Debates,    I,    245;    Madison    Papers,    V,    434. 

*  Elliott's  Debates,    I,    298;   Madison  Papers,   III,    1549. 


CONVENTION  OF  1787  3^ 

which  had  been  referred  parts  postponed  or 
passed  by,  reported: 

Sec.  2.  No  person  except  a  natural-born  citizen,  or  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution,  shall  be  eligible  to  the  office  of  President. 

This  was  agreed  to  nem.  con.,  and  embodied 
in  the  final  draft.^" 

The  Committee  of  Detail,  in  defining  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Supreme  Court,  extended 
it 

to  controversies  ....  between  a  state  and  citizens  of 
another  state;  between  citizens  of  different  states;  and 
between  a  state,  or  the  citizens  thereof,  and  foreign  states, 
citizens,  or  subjects." 

Later  it  was  made  the  judicial  power  that  was 
to  extend  to  these  controversies.  For  the 
present  purpose  there  is  need  only  to  notice 
the  mention  of  state  citizenship. 

The  Articles  of  Confederation  had  pro- 
vided that 

the  free  inhabitants  of  each  of  these  States,  paupers,  vaga- 
bonds, and  fugitives  from  justice  excepted,  shall  be  entitled 
to  all  privileges  and  immunities  of  free  citizens  in  the 
several  States,  and  the  people  of  each  State  shall  have  free 
ingress  and  regress  to  and  from  any  other  State,  and  shall 
enjoy  therein  all  the  privileges  of  trade  and  commerce,  sub- 
ject to  the  same  duties,  impositions,  and  restrictions  as  the 
inhabitants  thereof  respectively. 

The  corresponding  provision  in  the  Constitu- 
tion appears  first  in  the  draft  of  the  Commit- 

^'>  Elliott's  Debates,    I,    283,    291;    V,    522.  ^'^  Ibid.,   I,    229. 


32       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

tee  of  Detail,  as  follows :  "The  citizens  of 
each  State  shall  be  entitled  to  all  privileges 
and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several 
States."  This  was  agreed  to  as  reported,  9  to 
I,  South  Carolina  opposing  and  Georgia  di- 
vided. There  is  no  record  of  discussion  upon 
it,  and  it  remained  unchanged  in  the  final 
draft.i2 

About  the  close  of  the  convention  Hamil- 
ton gave  to  Madison  a  paper  outlining  the 
Constitution  as  he  would  have  wished  it  to 
have  been  proposed.  Representatives,  except 
in  the  first  instance,  were  to  be  chosen  "by  the 
free  male  citizens  and  inhabitants  of  the  sev- 
eral States."  "The  citizens  and  inhabitants 
of  the  several  States"  having  land  were  to 
choose  electors,  who  should  choose  the  sena- 
tors. No  person  was  to  be  eligible  to  the  of- 
fice of  president  unless  already  a  citizen  of  one 
of  the  states  or  thereafter  born  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States.  A  senator  or  representative  at 
the  time  of  his  election  should  be  a  citizen 
and  an  inhabitant  of  the  state  in  which  he 
was  chosen.  Finally,  "the  citizens  of  each 
State  shall  be  entitled  to  the  rights,  privileges, 

and  immunities  of  citizens  in  every  other 
State."  ^3 

12  O/.  rzV.,  I,  aag,   272;    IV,   2. 

'*  Madison    Papers,    III,    Appendix,    xvi. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  ACT  OF  1790 

The  Act  of  1790  was  the  first  response  of 
Congress  to  the  grant  of  power  to  pass  a  uni- 
form rule  of  naturahzation.  More  immediate- 
ly it  was  a  response  to  the  following  clause 
from  Washington's  annual  message  (January 
8,  1790) : 

Various  considerations  also  render  it  expedient  that 
the  terms  on  which  foreigners  may  be  admitted  to  the 
rights  of  citizens  should  be  speedily  ascertained  by  a  uni- 
form rule  of  naturalization. 

The  bill  was  reported  by  a  special  committee 
of  three  appointed  on  the  recommendation 
of  the  House  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the 
State  of  the  Union,  to  prepare  and  bring  in  a 
bill  or  bills  for  establishing  a  uniform  rule 
of  naturalization. 

While  it  was  in  preparation  the  House  dis- 
cussed at  some  length  questions  raised  by  a 
petition  of  one  H,  W.  Dobbyn,  of  Ireland, 
praying  Congress  to  grant  him  lands  on  terms 
to  encourage  him  to  bring  settlers  to  this 
country.  A  committee  had  reported  upon  this 
petition  in  favor  of  empowering  the  secretary 
of   the    treasury    to   sell    not    less    than    fifty 

33 


34       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

thousand  acres  in  one  tract.  On  the  one  hand, 
it  was  objected  that  Dobbyn  was  an  aHen  and 
might  not  be  able  to  conform  to  the  new  plan 
for  naturalization  soon  to  be  reported;  that 
both  naturalization  and  land  sales  ought  to 
be  by  general  laws ;  and  that,  in  view  of  the 
notoriously  rapid  growth  of  population  from 
the  present  inhabitants,  sufftcient  in  itself  to 
people  the  territory,  it  was  a  mistake  to  throw 
away  lands  on  foreign  speculators,  who  were 
less  likely  to  harmonize  with,  than,  if  numer- 
ous, to  embarrass,  a  republican  government. 
It  was  replied  that  it  was  important  to  attend 
to  the  proposals  of  foreigners — especially  of 
intending  citizens — for  the  purchase  of  lands; 
and  that  the  condition  of  complying  with  the 
laws  might  be  inserted  in  the  contract.  The 
report  was  laid  on  the  table. ^ 

When  the  naturalization  bill  was  reported, 
the  House  debated  it  at  considerable  length, 
recommitted  it  to  a  committee  of  ten,  which 
reported  an  amendatory  bill,  and  discussed 
the  latter  for  several  days.  Various  amend- 
ments were  agreed  to,  and  the  bill  passed. 
In  the  Senate  there  was  preliminary  consid- 
eration in  committee  of  the  whole,  a  fav- 
orable report  from  a  special  committee,  and 
further    consideration    in    committee    of    the 

^Annals  of  Congress,  First  Congress,  Second  Session,  1097, 
1 1 04,    1:08,    1110;  January   20,    1790. 


ACT  OF   1790  35 

whole  on  five  successive  days.  The  bill  then 
passed  with  an  amendment,  in  which  the 
House  concurred  at  once.^ 

The  debate  in  the  lower  house,  before  the 
bill  was  recommitted,  is  reported  quite  fully. 
Of  the  later  debates  in  either  house  there  is  no 
record;^  nor  can  the  course  of  amendments  be 
traced.  The  original  bill  provided  that  all 
free  white  persons  who  had  already  migrated 
into  the  United  States,  who  should  prove  by 
oath  that  they  intended  to  reside  in  the  United 
States,  take  an  oath  of  allegiance,  and  "shall 
have  resided  in  the  United  States  for  one 
whole  year,"should  be  entitled  to  all  the  rights 
of  citizenship,  except  that  of  holding  office 
under  either  a  state  or  the  general  govern- 
ment. For  office-holding  a  residence  of  two 
years  longer  was  required.^ 

Nineteen  members  are  known  to  have  par- 
ticipated in  the  first  debate,  upon  a  motion 
of  Tucker  (S.  C.)  to  strike  out  the  require- 
ment of  one  year's  residence  for  landholding. 
Six  of  them  spoke  three  times,  and  seven 
others  twice.  The  radical  nature  of  the  propo- 
sition to  require  no  previous  residence  for  ad- 

*  House  Journal,  First  Congress,  Second  Session,  146,  147, 
159,  etc.;  Senate  Journal,  i,  34-48;  Annals  of  Congress,  First  Con- 
gress, Second  Session,  988,  989,  992,  etc.;  1094,  1095,  1147.  146a, 
1463,    1516. 

*  Except  for  Maclay's  account  of  what  occurred  in  the   Senate. 

*  Annals  of  Congress,   First  Congress,    Second   Session,    1147. 


36       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

mission  to  citizenship,  except  for  office-hold- 
ing, doubtless  gave  a  special  color  to  the  vari- 
ous expressions  of  opinion,  and  makes  some 
of  them  seem  more  conservative  than  they 
otherwise  would  have  been. 

The  main  lines  of  argument  may  be  ex- 
hibited under  a  few  general  heads,  such  as 
constitutional  and  legal  questions,  protection 
from  dangers,  and  the  promotion  of  immigra- 
tion. The  constitutional  questions  were  two. 
One  man  (Jackson,  Ga.)  would  found  our  law 
on  principles  of  progressive  and  probational 
naturalization,  and  cited  English  law  in  sup- 
port of  his  position.  Another  (Smith,  S.  C.) 
also  insisted  that  a  uniform  rule  might  be 
progressive.  Madison  thought  it  a  nice  ques- 
tion how  far  they  should  admit  to  citizenship 
step  by  step,  and  Boudinot  (N.  J.)  asserted 
that  citizenship  ought  to  carry  with  it  full  and 
complete,  not  partial,  rights. 

The  serious  obstacle  in  the  way  of  progres- 
sive naturalization  was  the  view  of  the  sphere 
of  national  control  that  seemed  to  be  involved 
in  it.  According  to  Lawrence  (N.  Y.),  while 
Congress  would  establish  the  rule  of  natural- 
ization, the  effects  of  it  were  to  be  determined 
by  the  states.  Congress  had  only  to  point  out 
the  mode  for  becoming  citizens.  The  Consti- 
tution had  fixed  a  term  of  residence  for  a  seat 


ACT  OF  1790  37 

in  Congress,  It  was  doubly  doubtful  as  to 
the  power  of  Congress  to  fix  any  such  term 
as  a  qualification  for  membership  in  the  state 
legislatures.  Nor  could  Congress  lengthen 
the  six-months'  period  required  by  New  York 
law  for  voting  for  members  of  the  state  legis- 
lature, to  one  year  after  citizenship  had  been 
gained. 

Huntington  (Conn.)  wished  to  leave  the 
naturalization  of  foreigners  to  the  state  legis- 
latures. Stone  (Md.)  remembered  that  the 
states  withheld  privileges  even  from  natives. 
White  (Va.)  ventured  to  doubt  the  power 
of  Congress  to  decide  when  aliens  could  hold 
lands  within  the  states.  Seney  (Va.)  declared 
that  Congress  could  fix  a  long  term  of  resi- 
dence as  preliminary  to  office-holding  under 
the  United  States,  but  could  neither  lengthen 
nor  shorten  the  term  required  by  the  states. 
Again,  he  asserted  that  Congress  had  nothing 
to  do  with  prescribing  the  qualifications  for 
state  offices.  Smith  (S.  C.)  stood  alone  in  as- 
serting that  a  uniform  rule  of  naturailization 
would  make  a  uniform  rule  of  citizenship  for 
the  whole  continent,  and  decide  the  rights  of 
foreigners  generally.  Tucker  (S.  C.)  cited 
the  constitutional  provision  as  to  voters  as 
proof  that  the  states  and  not  Congress  were 
to  define  the  privileges  under  naturalization. 


38       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

Throughout  the  debate  the  principal  rights 
involved  in  citizenship  were  regarded  as  land- 
holding  and  office-holding.  Only  occasion- 
ally did  suffrage  as  an  independent  right  re- 
ceive notice. 

Apart  from  the  constitutional  questions 
considered  above,  every  point  had  to  be  con- 
sidered with  reference  to  its  effect  on  immigra- 
tion. The  problem  was  to  adjust  the  natural- 
ization law  so  as  to  gain  the  maximum  advan- 
tage from  immigration  with  the  least  harm 
or  danger  to  republican  government  and  in- 
stitutions, and  to  the  other  interests  of  the 
country.  Page  (Va.)  held  that  European 
policy  did  not  apply  here,  and  that  a  more 
liberal  system  was  permissible.  It  was  incon- 
sistent with  the  claim  of  an  asylum  to  make 
hard  terms.  These  would  exclude  the  good 
and  not  the  bad.  He  would  welcome  all  kinds 
of  emigrants;  all  would  be  good  citizens. 
Lawrence  (N.  Y.)  declared  that  they  were 
seeking  to  encourage  emigration,  but  that  the 
term  of  residence  in  the  bill  would  tend  to 
restrain  it.  The  newcomer  ought  to  vote  as 
soon  as  he  was  taxed.  He  was  not  likely  to 
leave  the  country  after  taking  oath  that  he 
intended  to  reside  in  the  United  States.  All 
comers,  rich  and  poor,  would  add  to  the 
wealth  or  strength  of  the  country.     The  evil 


ACT  OF  1790  39 

to  result  from  restraining  immigration  was 
greater  than  the  benefits  from  a  term  of  resi- 
dence. Conduct  could  be  restrained  by  laws. 
Smith  (S.  C.)  urged  that  the  intention  of  the 
motion  they  were  considering  was  to  permit 
land  purchase  and  holding.  Clymer  (Pa.) 
would  admit  to  citizenship  gradually,  and 
suggested  that  it  might  be  well  to  admit  per- 
sons to  hold  land  without  ever  coming  to  the 
United  States,  as  Pennsylvania  had  done.  It 
would  result  in  easy  borrowing. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  dangers  to  be  appre- 
hended from  foreign-born  citizens  who  might 
be  lacking  in  character,  in  knowledge  of,  and 
attachment  to,  free  institutions,  or  in  a  stead- 
fast purpose  to  reside  in  the  United  States,  or 
who  might  be  paupers  or  even  criminals,  were 
strongly  urged  by  a  majority  of  the  speakers. 
Roger  Sherman  (Conn.)  presumed  that  the  in- 
tention of  the  constitutional  provision  was  to 
prevent  states  from  forcing  undesirable  per- 
sons upon  other  states.  It  was  to  guard 
against  an  improper  mode  of  naturalization, 
rather  than  to  provide  easier  terms.  Congress 
would  not  compel  a  state  to  receive  emigrants 
likely  to  become  chargeable.  It  would  be 
necessary  to  add  a  clause  to  provide  for  such. 
Hartley  (Pa.)  opposed  admission  to  all  of  the 
privileges  of  a  citizen  without  a  residence  re- 


40       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

quirement.  To  have  such  a  requirement  was 
the  practice  of  almost  every  state.  All 
modern  experience  had  shown  the  propriety 
of  a  line  between  the  citizen  and  the  alien.  It 
would  not  be  so  bad  if  only  landholding  were 
involved,  but  voting  was  involved.  Even  if 
the  foreigner  was  qualified  to  vote,  there  could 
be  no  hold  on  his  attachment  to  the  govern- 
ment, and  hence  no  assurance  of  a  good  citi- 
zen, without  requiring  a  term  of  residence  in 
which  he  might  come  to  esteem  the  govern- 
ment. Madison  believed  it  necessary  to 
guard  against  abuses.  They  should  induce 
the  worthy  of  mankind  to  come,  the  object 
being  to  increase  the  wealth  and  strength  of 
the  country.  Those  who  would  weaken  it 
were  not  wanted.  If  only  an  oath  was  re- 
quired, aliens  might  evade  the  laws  intended 
to  encourage  the  trade  of  citizens,  and  thus 
have  in  trade  all  the  advantages  both  of  citi- 
zens and  of  aliens.  It  was  a  simple  question 
that  was  before  them — whether  residence  was 
a  proper  quality.  He  had  no  doubt  that  it 
was. 

Jackson  (Ga.)  wanted  the  term  "citizen" 
to  be  venerated.  He  favored  a  term  of  pro- 
bation, and  testimonials  at  the  end  of  it, 
and  would  have  the  grand  jury  or  the  dis- 
trict courts  decide  as  to  the  character.      Sylvester 


ACT  OF  1790  41 

(N.  Y.)  also  favored  a  term  of  probation  and 
vouchers  for  good  behavior.  He  suggested 
lodging  the  whole  power  of  admitting  for- 
eigners in  district  judges.  Page  objected  that 
Jackson's  plan  involved  inquisition  and  expel- 
ling the  unworthy.  It  led  to  a  test  of  the  faith 
and  politics  of  all  who  came  for  admission. 
Every  man  taking  the  oath  of  allegiance  and 
purposing  residence  ought  to  be  admitted  to 
buy  land.  He  did  not  object  to  a  residence 
qualification  for  voting.  Stone  (Md.)  would 
give  property  rights  after  six  months'  resi- 
dence, requiring  an  oath  of  allegiance  and  of 
intended  residence.  For  voting  and  office-hold- 
ing he  would  require  seven  years'  residence, 
following  the  example  of  the  Constitution  in 
this  respect.^  An  emigrant  desired  property 
and  not  political  rights.  Before  he  was  grant- 
ed the  latter,  he  must  have  time  in  which  to 
come  to  know  the  government,  to  admit  the 
truth  of  its  principles,  and  to  have  acquired 
a  taste  for  this  kind  of  government.  Burke 
(S.  C.)  said  that  one  year  was  tod  short  a 
residence  requirement,  and  seven  years  were 
too  long.  The  time  ought  to  be  two,  three,  or 
four  years.  Sedgwick  (Mass.)  opposed  ad- 
mitting the  outcasts  of  Europe.  There  was 
no   necessity   of   peopling  the   United   States 

^Pennsylvania    Packet,    February     11,     1790. 


42       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

thus.     He  favored  guarded  admission  and  a 
term  of  probation. 

Boudinot  (N.  J.)  opposed  the  amendment. 
He  would  rather  increase  the  term  of  resi- 
dence to  two  years,  and  omit  the  office-hold- 
ing restriction.  One  speaker  proposed  that,  if 
the  residence  requirement  was  omitted,  a 
clause  be  added  to  deprive  of  their  citizenship 
those  who  left  the  country  and  remained 
abroad  a  given  time.  Otherwise  merchants 
and  sea  captains  would  evade  the  payment  of 
duties  by  merely  taking  an  oath  of  intent  to 
reside  in  the  United  States.  Another  thought 
the  mode  of  the  bill  was  much  too  easy.  Va- 
rious states,  and  Great  Britain  in  particular, 
required  a  special  act  of  the  legislature  to 
naturalize.  He  wished  to  amend  to  leave 
naturalization  to  the  state  legislatures.  One 
member  proposed  to  receive  farmers,  manu- 
facturers, and  mechanics  on  liberal  terms,  but 
to  exclude  merchants  and  factors,  and  also 
criminals.  Other  propositions  were  to  in- 
invalidate  land  titles,  if  residence  was  inter- 
rupted within  three  years ;  to  grant  inherit- 
ance rights  in  the  United  States  only  when 
the  favor  was  reciprocated  by  European  na- 
tions; to  make  easy  the  return  of  Tories  to 
citizenship;  and  to  recommit  the  bill  to  pro- 
vide   for    the    case    of    children    born    abroad. 


ACT  OF   1790  43 

Sedgwick  saw  no  extrication  from  a  wilder- 
ness of  ideas  more  various  than  on  any  other 
question.  The  committee  rose,  and  the 
House  recommitted  the  bill  to  a  special  com- 
mittee of  ten  members.^  Its  later  course  has 
been  given  in  outline. 

Maclay  in  his  Journal  commented  upon  the 
proceedings  in  the  Senate  each  day  that  the 
bill  was  before  it,  and  must  be  quoted  in  de- 
tail. On  March  8  he  said :  The  naturaliza- 
tion bill  was  taken  up.  The  debates  were  ex- 
ceedingly lengthy,  and  a  great  number  of 
amendments  were  moved.  Morris  [his  col- 
league] stood  by  me  in  one  to  enable  aliens 
to  hold  lands.  I  engaged  warmly  on  every 
question.  It  is  a  vile  bill,  illiberal  and  void  of 
philanthropy,  and  needed  mending  much.  We 
complained  ^  that  such  an  ungenerous  bill 
should  be  sent  us — or  at  least  I  did.  They 
answered,  "You  have  little  to  do,"  and  that 
they  had  sent  us  employment. 

The  following  day  he  had  to  wrangle  with 
the  New  England  men  alone  on  the  naturali- 
zation bill  till  nearly  one  o'clock.  Johnston 
(N.  C.)  took  part  in  some  degree  with  him. 
His  success  had  been  tolerable — but  such 
shuffling  and  want  of  candor !     He  had  cer- 

*  Annals  of  Congress,  First  Congress,  Second  Session,  1147-61; 
Pennsylvania    Packet,    February    11,    1790. 

'  To   the   Pennsylvania    members   of   the   House. 


44       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

tainly  gained  greatly,  though.  They  had 
failed  twice  the  day  before  in  the  attempt  to 
throw  out  the  two-years'-residence  require- 
ment; and  his  amendments  went  to  cure  this 
defect  with  respect  to  holding  lands.  Many 
members  then  declared  their  dislike  of  the 
two  years,  and  wished  the  bill  committed  for 
the  purpose  of  having  that  part  rejected.  He 
had  agreed,  but  they  were  very  unlucky  in 
the  committee  they  got. 

We  Pennsylvanians  act  as  if  we  believed  that  God 
made  of  one  blood  all  the  families  of  the  earth ;  but  the 
eastern  people  seem  to  think  that  he  made  none  but  New 
England  folks. 

It  was  strange  that  they  were  born  under  re- 
publican forms  and  were  so  contracted  on  the 
subject  of  general  philanthropy.  Pennsyl- 
vania was  used  to  the  reception  and  adoption 
of  strangers,  but  there  was  no  class  of  people 
that  she  received  with  such  diffidence  as  the 
eastern  people.  They  really  had  the  worst 
characters  of  any  people  that  offered  them- 
selves for  citizens.  Yet  they  were  the  ones 
who  affected  the  greatest  fear  of  being  con- 
taminated with  foreign  manners,  customs,  and 
vices.  Perhaps  they  were  justly  fearful  as  to 
adopting  any  of  the  latter,  for  they  certainly 
had  enough  already. 

Three   days   later   the   committee   had   re- 


ACT   OF   1790  45 

ported,  but  far  short  of  the  points  which  he 
wished  established.  There  really  seemed  a 
spirit  of  malevolence  against  Pennsylvania 
in  the  business.  She  had  been  very  liberal  on 
the  subject  of  admitting  strangers  to  citizen- 
ship; she  had  benefited  and  did  still  benefit  by 
it.  Some  characters  seemed  disposed  to  de- 
prive them  of  those  benefits.  He  had  moved 
a  postponement  of  a  day,  which  was  easily 
carried,  that  they  might  consider  the  amend- 
ment. Izard  (S.  C.)  had  snapped,  ill-natured 
as  a  cur,  and  said  "No"  alone. 

Four  more  days  of  debate  and  part  of  another 
followed.  The  same  illiberality  still  possessed 
the  New  England  men.  "Immigration  is  a 
source  of  population  to  us  and  they  wish  to 
deprive  us  of  it."  Maclay  was  dissatisfied 
with  the  work  of  his  colleague,  Morris. 
King  (N.  Y. )  was  as  much  against  them  as 
any,  but  he  did  it  in  an  indirect  way.     Again : 

All  our  old  arguments  went  over  and  over  again. 
The  fact  is,  the  adoption  of  strangers  has  set  Pennsyl- 
vania far  ahead  of  her  sister  states.  They  are  spiteful  and 
envious,  and  wish  to  deprive  her  of  this  source  of  popula- 
tion; but  it  will  scarcely  do  to  avow  openly  such  ungener- 
ous conduct.  It  therefore  must  be  done  under  various 
pretenses  and  legal  distinctions.  Two  years'  residence  was 
insisted  on  in  the  bill.  We  cared  not  for  this,  but  let  the 
stranger  hold  land  the  moment  he  comes,  etc.,  etc.  Two 
law  opinions  were  supported  in  the  debates  of  the  day :  * 

'  March    17. 


46       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

one  that  the  power  of  holding  lands  was  a  feature  of 
naturalization ;  that  lands,  etc.,  could  not  be  held  without 
it.  This  doctrine  was  pushed  so  far  by  Ellsworth  [Conn.] 
as  to  declare  that  the  rights  of  electors,  being  elected,  etc., 
should  attend  and  be  described  in  the  act  of  naturalization. 
All  that  could  be  said  would  not  support  this  doctrine. 
Ellsworth  was  even  so  absurd  as  to  suppose,  if  a  man 
acquired  the  right  of  suffrage  in  one  state,  he  had  it  in  all, 
etc.  This  doctrine  it  was  seen  would  not  carry,  and  now 
one  more  conformable  to  the  common  law  was  set  up. 

It  was  alleged  that  the  disability  of  an  alien  to  hold 
lands  arose  from  the  common  law,  and  was  separable  from 
the  rights  of  naturalization,  as  in  the  case  of  denization  in 
England,  where  the  crown  could  confer  the  right  of  giving, 
receiving,  and  holding  real  property.  When  an  alien,  there- 
fore, was  enabled  to  hold  real  estate,  it  was  in  reality  by 
repealing  part  of  the  common  law  with  respect  to  him ;  not 
by  giving  a  power,  but  taking  away  a  disability.  It,  there- 
fore, strictly  speaking  rested  with  the  respective  states 
whether  they  would  repeal  the  common  law  with  respect  to 
aliens  touching  the  point  of  holding  property,  and,  being  a 
pure  state  concern,  had  no  occasion  to  be  made  any  men- 
tion of  in  the  naturalization  act,  but  must  remain  to  be 
settled  by  the  dififerent  states  by  law,  as  well  as  the  rights 
of  election,  etc.  We  of  Pennsylvania  contended  hard  to 
have  a  clause  for  empowering  aliens  to  hold,  etc.  but  the 
above  reasoning  prevailed,  and  we  lost  it. 

After  another  day's  debate,  he  continued : 
From  the  most  accurate  observation  I  have  been  able 
to  make  the  conduct  of  the  members  has  been  influenced  by 
the  following  motives :  as  Pennsylvania  is  supposed  likely 
to  derive  most  benefit  by  migrations,  the  Eastern  members 
are  disposed  to  check  it  as  much  as  they  can.  Jersey 
nearly  indifferent;    Delaware  absolutely  so;    Maryland  as 


ACT  OF   1790  47 

Jersey ;  Virginia  unrepresented  ;  North  Carolina  favorable ; 
South  Carolina  and  Georgia  want  people  much  but  they 
fear  the  migrations,  and  will  check  them  rather  than  run 
the  chance  of  importing  people  who  may  be  averse  to  slav- 
ery. Hence  the  bill  passed  the  House  [Senate]  nearly  as 
it  came  up  from  the  representatives. 

The  governing  idea?,  however,  seem  to  be  the  follow- 
ing :  That  the  holding  of  property  was  separable  from  and 
not  actually  connected  with  naturalization ;  that  laws  and 
regulations  relating  to  property,  not  being  among  the 
powers  granted  to  Congress,  remained  with  the  different 
States.  Therefore,  Congress  would  be  guilty  of  an  assump- 
tion of  power  if  they  touched  it ;  that  the  holding  of  prop- 
erty was  a  common  law  right,  and  the  disability  of  aliens  to 
hold  property  from  that  quarter.  King  [N.  Y.],  Patterson 
[N.  J.],  Bassett  [Del.],  Read  [Del.],  Henry  [Md.],  Johns- 
ton [N.  C],  all  finally  settled  in  this  way,  Ellsworth  dead 
against  this;  the  holding  property  (real)  a  feature  insepar- 
able from  naturalization,  etc.  Strong  [Mass.]  rather  in- 
clined to  Ellsworth,  Dr.  Johnson  [Conn.]  said  about  as 
much  on  one  side  as  on  the  other.  Few,  too,  is  said  to  be 
a  lawyer;  but,  though  he  spoke  a  great  deal,  he  did  not 
seem  to  enter  into  the  distinctions.  For  our  parts  we 
wished  the  naturalization  bill  to  be  in  exact  conformity  as 
possible  to  the  existing  laws  relating  to  aliens  in  Pennsyl- 
vania; and  this,  I  am  convinced,  would  have  been  the 
case  had  it  not  been  for  that  low  spirit  which  contaminates 
public  characters  as  well  as  private  life. 

It  appears  that  all  over  Europe  where  the  civil  law  pre- 
vails, aliens  hold  property.  It  is  the  common  law  of 
England  that  deprives  them  of  holding  real  estate.  The 
common  law  has  been  received  by  us,  and  with  it  this  con- 
sequence. However,  since  we  cannot  get  the  rights  of 
property  fully  acknowledged,  it  is  best  that  the  naturaliza- 
tion bill  say  nothing  about  it." 

'  Maclay's   Journal.    208-11,    213-17. 


48       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

The  new  law  provided  for  the  naturaHza- 
tion  of  free  white  aliens  after  two  years'  resi- 
dence in  the  United  States,  upon  application 
to  any  common  law  court  of  record  in  the 
state  where  they  had  resided  for  one  year. 
They  were  to  satisfy  the  court  of  their  good  char- 
acter, and  take  an  oath  administered  by  the 
court  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  Minor  children  resident  in 
the  United  States  at  the  time  became  citizens 
of  the  United  States  also.  Children  born 
abroad  of  citizens  were  to  be  natural-born 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  unless  the  father 
had  never  resided  in  the  United  States.  Any 
citizen  already  proscribed  by  a  state  was  not 
to  be  readmitted  to  citizenship  except  by  the 
act  of  the  legislature  of  the  proscribing  state. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  ACT   OF   1795 

At  the  beginning  of  the  session  of  1794-95, 
a  House  committee  ^  prepared  a  bill  to  amend 
the  act  of  1790.  The  measure,  reported  by 
Madison  as  chairman,  was  debated  at  length,^ 
variously  amended,  and,  by  recommittal,  lost 
its  original  character  as  an  amendment  to  the 
act  of  1790,  and  became  a  substitute  for  it. 
Further  debate  ^  and  several  amendments 
prepared  it  for  the  Senate. 

No  adequate  conception  of  the  original 
bill  can  be  gained  from  the  published  records. 
Dexter  (Mass.)  introduced  the  debate  in  com- 
mittee of  the  whole.  He  earnestly  called  at- 
tention to  the  importance  and  necessity  of 
amending  the  existing  law.  He  described 
the  present  easy  access  to  citizenship  as  dan- 
gerous and  insufficient  to  prevent  improper 
persons  from  being  incorporated  with  the 
American  people.  Longer  time  was  absolute- 
ly necessary  in  which  to  detect  persons  lack- 
ing natural  attachment  for,  and  prepossessed 

*  Madison,  Dexter,  Cairnes;  appointed  December  8,  reported 
December    15. 

■On   December  22,   26,   29,   30,   31;   January    i   and   2. 

•  On  January  6,    7,   and   8. 

49 


50       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

against,  the  United  States.  The  importance 
of  the  general  subject  was  emphasized  by 
declarations  that  America  was  the  last  and 
only  asylum  for  vagabonds  and  fugitives,  and 
that  the  establishment  of  uniform  rules  of 
naturalization  was, one  of  the  grand  objects  of 
the  Constitution.  His  motion  to  strike  out 
the  two-years'-residence  requirement,  leaving 
the  blank  to  be  filled  later,  was  supported  by 
forty-five  members. 

Dexter,  continuing,  referred  to  the  facility 
with  which  foreign  agents  could  take  the  oath 
in  order  to  save  tonnage  charges.  He  pro- 
posed an  amendment  to  remedy  this  evil,  and 
a  proviso  that  those  who  renounced  all  foreign 
allegiance  forever,  and  declared  on  oath  their 
intention  of  becoming  citizens,  should  pay  no 
more  tonnage  dues  than  they  would  if  fully 
naturalized.  Giles  opposed  favors  to  mercan- 
tile people,  since  they  were  the  least  of  any 
attached  to  the  country.  Dexter  thought 
some  of  them  brought  large  capital.  Madison 
said  that  the  clause  belonged  to  the  commer- 
cial regulations,  not  here ;  and  the  motion  was 
withdrawn. 

Giles  proposed  that  a  special  law  of  the 
state  abandoned  be  required  to  reinstate  per- 
sons expatriating  themselves.  Tracy  (Conn.) 
did  not  favor  perpetual  allegiance ;  neverthe- 


ACT  OF  1795  SI 

less,  he  thought  it  ill  policy  to  admit  a  man 
back  after  he  had  expatriated  himself,  when 
he  must  have  lost  real  attachment  to  any  gov- 
ernment. The  amendment  proposed,  even  if 
proper,  made  return  too  easy.  He  suggested 
that  a  law  of  the  United  States,  evidently  a 
private  bill  for  each  case,  be  required  also. 
To  this  Giles  agreed.  However,  further  dis- 
cussion showed  legal  and  constitutional  diffi- 
culties in  the  way  of  such  a  course,  and  this 
amendment  was  withdrawn.  Certainly  it  con- 
flicted with  the  constitutional  requirement  of 
uniformity  in  the  naturalization  law.  It  is 
important  to  note  the  very  general  assump- 
tion that  attachment  to  one  or  another  kind  of 
government  was  what  determined  men's  mi- 
grations from  country  to  country.  This  idea 
was  so  prominent  that  the  element  of  fact  rep- 
resented by  it  must  have  been  considerable, 
and  the  fact  has  an  important  bearing  upon 
the  question  of  the  character  of  the  emigrants 
generally. 

The  bill  did  not  yet  meet  the  approval  of 
Dexter.  He  moved  that  no  alien  be  admitted 
except  on  the  oath  of  two  creditable  witness- 
es, certifying  that  in  their  opinion  he  was  of 
good  moral  character  and  attached  to  the  wel- 
fare of  the  country.  His  colleague,  Sedgwick, 
supported  him.     The  present  time  of  Euro- 


52       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

pean  war  was  inauspicious  for  the  indiscrimi- 
nate admission  of  aliens.  He  had  always  op- 
posed the  government  policy.  Republican 
character  was  hard  to  form.  Greece,  Rome, 
and  the  Swiss  jealously  guarded  their  citizen- 
ship. They  should  take  warning  also  from 
Saxon,  Danish,  and  Norman  England,  and  not 
invite  or  bribe  the  undesirable.  America 
should  husband  its  wealth  in  land,  for  many 
would  be  dependent  when  it  was  gone.  The 
two  amendments  proposed  ^  would  check  the 
number  of  emigrants  and  not  exclude  the 
worthy.*^ 

Giles  ^  wished  to  amend  by  substituting  for 
''attached  to  the  welfare  of  this  country,"  in 
Dexter's  amendment,  "attached  to  a  Repub- 
lican form  of  government."  Dexter  preferred 
"attached  to  the  constitution  of  the  United 
States."  Giles  had  little  or  no  objection,  but 
soon  after  had  the  amendment  changed  to 
"attached  to  the  principles  of  the  government 
of  the  United  States."  In  the  final  form  "gov- 
ernment" is  changed  to  "constitution,"  and 
the  phrase  reads,  "attached  to  the  principles 
of  the  constitution  of  the  United  States." 

W.  J.  Dayton  would  want  a  court  to  de- 
termine   the    nature    of    evidence    submitted. 

*  Requiring  longer   residence   and  evidence  of  character. 

'  The  end  of  the  first  day's  debate.  *  December   26. 


ACT  OF  1795  53 

Poor  men  were  more  desirable  than  mer- 
chants, and  it  would  be  hard  for  them  to  get 
two  witnesses.  Madison  agreed  that  it  would 
perhaps  be  difficult  for  many  citizens,  who 
might  have  moved  about,  to  find  two  reputa- 
ble witnesses  who  could  swear  to  the  purity 
of  their  principles  for  three  years  backj  He 
objected  to  requiring  men  to  swear  that  they 
preferred  the  Constitution.  They  might  be 
honest  in  determining  to  support  the  govern- 
ment, and  yet  think  some  other  form  better. 
Dexter,  in  reply,  mentioned  the  abuses  that 
had  happened  in  the  present  form  of  ad- 
mitting citizens,  and  said  that  the  poor,  if 
deserving,  could  get  proofs  as  easy  as  the 
rich.  Murray  (Md.)  was  indifferent  if  not 
fifty  emigrants  came  to  the  continent  in  a 
year.  It  was  unjust  to  hinder,  but  impolitic 
to  encourage,  them.  They  might  contami- 
nate. The  amendment  requiring  two  witness- 
es as  to  the  moral  character  and  political 
opinions  of  candidates  for  naturalization  then 
passed. 

On  the  29th  an  effort  to  strike  out  "moral" 
from  the  phrase  "good  moral  character"  in 
the  amendment  was  successfully  opposed,  on 
the  grounds  that  the  word  had  nothing  to  do 

''  The  reference  to  three  years  at  this  time  is  inexplicable.  The 
time  between  declaration  of  intention  and  admission  must  have  been 
fixed  before  the   five  years'   residence  period   was  determined. 


54       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

with  religion,  and  that  to  omit  it  would  slan- 
der the  American  character. 

Mr.  Sedgwick  desired  to  give  property 
rights  without  suffrage,  but  did  not  know 
whether  the  Constitution  authorized  it  or  not. 
This  raised  again  in  the  House  the  old  ques- 
tion which,  according  to  Maclay's  Journal,^ 
was  settled  in  the  Senate  during  the  debate  of 
1790,  in  strict  accordance  with  modern  ideas; 
but  there  is  no  report  of  further  discussion 
upon  it.  The  clause  last  considered  passed, 
and  the  discussion  recurred  to  a  question  pre- 
sented by  Giles  and  Tracy  in  the  debate  of 
the  first  day.  A  motion  by  Giles  had  been 
withdrawn,  but  it  now  appeared  as  the  third 
resolution  in  the  report  under  consideration,^ 
as  follows :  That  an  American  citizen  who  had 
expatriated  himself  should  not  be  restored  to 
citizenship,  without  a  special  act  of  Congress 
and  of  the  state  that  he  had  abandoned.  Madi- 
son did  not  think  that  Congress  by  the  Con- 
stitution had  any  authority  to  readmit  Ameri- 
can citizens.  It  was  granted  to  them  to  ad- 
mit only  aliens.  Sedgwick  was  very  willing 
that  they  should  never  be  readmitted. 

A  motion  by  Hillhouse   (Conn.),^*^  that  if 

8  See  p.  47. 

•  Probably  this  was  the  report  in  preparation  by  the  committee 
of  the  whole. 

10  December  30. 


ACT  OF  1795  55 

any  American  citizen  should  thereafter  be- 
come a  citizen  of  a  foreign  state,  he  should 
not  be  again  admitted,  gave  rise  to  more  than 
three  hours  of  debate.  Dunlap's  American 
Daily  Advertiser  says  that  it  was  in  various 
shapes  and  difficult  to  summarize.^  ^  The  An- 
nals report  the  ideas  of  two  speakers  only. 
Murray  (Md.)  hoped  the  motion  would  suc- 
ceed. It  was  unnecesary  to  decide  whether 
men  could  expatriate  themselves  without  the 
express  consent  of  their  country.  He  thought 
they  could.  The  United  States  practice 
favored  this  view,  for  a  government's  accept- 
ance of  allegiance  presupposed  the  right  to 
tender  it.  But  there  was  little  danger  of 
worthy  citizens  throwing  off  their  allegiance ; 
and,  in  any  case,  prohibiting  a  return  would  be 
a  sufficient  penalty.  On  the  other  hand,  Bald- 
win (Ga.)  expressed  the  strongest  disap- 
proval of  the  idea  of  expatriating  all  persons 
who  became  citizens  of  another  country. 
Many  were  made  such  merely  as  a  mark  of 
esteem,  and  had  no  design  of  renouncing  their 
allegiance  to  the  United  States. ^^  There  is  no 
report  of  the  action  by  which  this  motion 
failed. 

1^  January    5,    1799. 

^'  In  this  connection  an  item  from  The  Life  and  Letters  of 
Joel  Barlow,  by  C.  B.  Todd,  (p.  97),  is  of  interest.  It  refers  to 
a  list  of  seven   "Anglais"   in   The  Patriate  of   September  25,    1793, 


56       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

Debate  recurred  the  following  day  upon 
the  proposition  to  require  both  state  and  fed- 
eral consent  for  repatriation.  A  motion  by 
Smith  (S.  C.)  to  strike  out  this  resolution, 
leaving  the  law  as  it  stood,  was  rejected.  It 
seemed  thus  in  a  fair  way  to  become  law,  but 
did  not  appear  again.  Madison  certainly  op- 
posed what  he  held  to  be  unconstitutional, 
and  probably  his  committee,  when  again  in 
charge  of  the  bill,  dropped  this  superlatively 
patriotic  proposition.  In  later  years,  how- 
ever, the  idea  was  revived  several  times,  in- 
dicating the  persistence  of  the  thought  that  a 
man's  change  of  country  is  due  to  choice  of 
government,  and  that,  therefore,  one  who  has 
abandoned  the  United  States  has  disapproved 
of  its  government,  and,  as  a  rule,  cannot  or 
will   not  adequately  repent  of  this   ill-doing. 

After  some  discussion,  Giles  moved  to  re- 
quire the  renunciation  in  court  of  any  titles  of 
nobility.  He  thought  this  would  be  useful,  if 
anything  was  to  be  done  to  prevent  the  im- 

upon  whom  the  French  National  Convention  proposed  to  confer  the 
title  of  "Citizen  of  France."  Among  them  was  Joel  Barlow.  It 
continues:  "Save  Washington  and  Hamilton,  Barlow  was  the  only 
American  on  whom  the  privileges  of  French  citizenship  had  been 
conferred." 

Moncure  D.  Conway,  in  the  Writings  of  Paine  (III,  97),  states 
that  on  August  26,  1792,  the  National  Assembly  conferred  the  title 
of  "French  Citizens"  on  nineteen  persons.  Among  them  were 
Paine  (spelled  Payne),  Washington,  Hamilton,  and  Madison.  The 
others  include  such  names  as  Bentham,  Wilberforce,  Klopstock, 
Kosciusko,  and  Pestalozzi.  Both  Virginia  and  Maryland  had  natur- 
alixed   La   Fayette. 


ACT  OF  1795  57 

proper  admixture  of  foreigners.  Smith  was 
entirely  opposed  to  this.  A  similar  attempt 
made  in  one  of  the  state  legislatures  some 
years  before  was  dropped  as  improper.  The 
public  mind  was  completely  guarded  against 
the  introduction  of  titles,  and  they  would 
never  become  current.  Congress  could  not 
declare  it  a  crime  to  call  a  man  viscount.  He 
doubted  the  constitutional  right  of  the  meas- 
ure, for  they  had  no  authority  to  take  away 
titles.  Dexter  was  averse  to  titles,  but  did 
not  like  to  make  laws  against  them.  Page 
(Va.)  highly  recommended  the  motion.  Giles 
urged  that  there  was  no  harm  in  expressing 
what  Dexter  had  said  was  implied  in  the  Con- 
stitution. The  strange  turn  in  affairs  in 
Europe  had  not  been  foreseen,  nor  the  result- 
ing danger  of  an  inundation  of  titled  fugitives. 
Madison  approved  the  motion.  It  was  exactly 
the  thing  to  exclude  from  citizenship  those 
who  would  not  renounce  titles.  The  Revolu- 
tion would  infallibly  have  abolished  any  titles 
existing  here.  With  opposition  from  both 
South  Carolina  and  Massachusetts,  and  sup- 
port reported  only  from  his  own  state,  Giles 
thought  it  best  to  withdraw  his  motion  tem- 
porarily.^^    Madison  said  that  the  thing  most 

"  The  bill  with  amendments  was  at  this  point  in  the  debate 
reported  from  the  committee  of  the  whole  to  the  House.  Discus- 
sion was  renewed  there  the  following  day  (January  i,  1795),  «nd 
the  amendments  reported  were  quickly  agreed  to. 


58       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

to  be  feared  was  that  alien  immigrants  should 
obtain  property  in  American  shipping.  They 
could  thus  clandestinely  favor  particular  na- 
tions in  trade.  He  would  require  a  longer 
time  for  gaining  certain  trade  rights,  if  he 
made  any  distinctions  in  the  law.  Giles,  by 
renewing  the  motion  for  the  renouncing  of 
titles,^  ^  then  prolonged  the  debate  for  two 
days.     His  amendment  was  as  follows: 

And,  in  case  any  such  alien  applying  for  admission  to 
become  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  shall  have  borne  any 
hereditary  title,  or  been  of  any  of  the  orders  of  nobility,  in 
the  Kingdom  or  State  from  which  he  came,  in  addition  to 
the  requisites  of  this  and  the  fore-recited  act,  he  shall  make 
an  express  renunciation  of  his  title  or  order  of  nobility,  in 
the  court  to  which  his  application  shall  be  made,  before  he 
shall  be  entitled  to  such  admission ;  which  renunciation 
shall  be  recorded  in  the  said  court. 

He  declared  that  stronger  evidence  was 
necessary  to  make  sure  that  all  pretense  of  a 
title  had  been  renounced.  He  had  voted  for 
clauses  to  guard  against  Jacobin  extremes,** 
and  would  now  guard  against  the  more  dan- 
gerous aristocrats,  of  whom  it  was  highly 
probable  they  would  soon  have  great  num- 
bers here.  A  large  part  of  Europe  had  de- 
clared against  titles,  and  there  was  no  guess- 

^*  It  was  first  offered  in  committee  of  the  whole,  and  now  re- 
newed  in  the   House. 

**  This  may  refer  to  any  of  the  more  stringent  provisions  of 
the  bill,  and  especially  to  the  renunciation  of  allegiance  and  the 
evidence  required  of  attachment  to   the   United  States. 


ACT  OF  1795  59 

ing  where  the  process  would  stop.  The  French 
nobility  numbered  twenty  thousand,  a  great 
proportion  of  whom  might  finally  be  expect- 
ed here.  This  fugitive  nobility  might  acquire 
influence  here,  and  there  was  no  law  to  pre- 
vent them  from  voting  or  coming  to  Con- 
gress.^^  Dexter  said  that  he  was  not  very 
anxious  about  it,  but  opposed  the  amendment. 
Priestcraft  had  done  more  mischief  than  aris- 
tocracy. 

Madison  took  middle  ground  as  to  the  im- 
portance of  the  question;  apparently  he  had 
moderated  his  views  somewhat  since  he  had 
last  spoken  upon  it.  Republicanism,  he 
thought,  was  likely  to  pervade  Europe  gen- 
erally, and  it  was  hard  to  guess  how  many 
titled  characters  might  be  thrown  out.  It  was 
reasonable  that  crowds  of  them  coming  here 
should  be  required  to  renounce  everything 
contrary  to  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution. 
Hereditary  titles  were  proscribed  by  the  Con- 
stitution. He  would  not  wish  to  have  a  citizen 
who  refused  the  proposed  oath.  Page  (Va.) 
believed  the  class  principle  would  come  in  and 
produce  mischievous  effects  here  as  else- 
where. He  did  not  want  to  see  a  duke  con- 
test an  election  to  Congress  with  a  citizen, 

1*  Giles  must  here  be  taken  to  mean  that  a  naturalized  for- 
eigner might  vote,  and  that  one  who  had  been  seven  years  a  citi- 
zen of  the  United  States  might  be  sent  to  Congress. 


6o       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

Sedgwick  declared  that,  in  taking  the  oath  of 
allegiance,  nobility  was  solemnly  abjured,  for 
that  oath  destroyed  all  connection  with  the 
old  government.  To  his,  "Why  reprovide?" 
Giles  retorted,  "Why  not  provide  for  it  direct- 
ly, if  implied?"  and  declared  that  he  should 
call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  on  his  motion. 
Nicholas  (Va.)  was  sure  that  they  ought  to 
require  an  oath  that  the  new  citizen  would 
never  accept  any  title. 

Lee  (Va.)  was  sorry  they  had  so  long  agi- 
tated an  unimportant  matter.  In  the  minds 
of  some^  the  motion  was  characterized  by 
frivolity  and  inefficiency.  He  saw  no  shadow 
of  foundation  to  build  alarm  upon.  One  might 
in  this  free  country  call  himself  by  any  name 
or  title.  Not  titles  but  privileges  were  the 
dangerous  thing.  By  the  equal  division  of  es- 
tates here,  individuals  were  prevented  from 
being  ^^  so  rich  as  to  trample  upon  the  necks 
of  their  equals.  Personally,  he  was  very  in- 
different in  the  matter;  but  as  tending  to 
spread  a  false  alarm,  it  was  his  duty  to  oppose 
the  motion.  Scott  (Pa.)  was  for  the  motion 
on  the  ground  that,  it  being  unlawful  to  manu- 
facture titles  here,  it  was  ^®  unlawful  to  import 
them.     If  the  importation  was  allowed,  titles 

17  1.  e.,  "becoming." 

^*  Probably   "should   be." 


ACT  OF  1795  61 

would  soon  be  as  prevalent  here  as  in 
England. 

At  this  point  Dexter  announced  that  he 
would  vote  for  Giles's  amendment  with  a  fur- 
ther amendment  for  renouncing  slaves.  He 
offered  the  following : 

And,  also,  in  case  such  alien  shall,  at  the  time  of  his 
application,  hold  any  person  in  slavery,  he  shall  in  the  same 
manner  renounce  all  right  and  claim  to  hold  such  person  in 
slavery. 

Thatcher  (Mass.)  would  add,  ''and  that  he 
never  will  possess  slaves."  Giles  replied  that 
he  should  think  his  amendment  very  import- 
ant, if  such  extraordinary  resources  were 
adopted  against  it.  He  was  sorry  to  see 
slavery  made  a  jest,  and  it  had  no  proper  con- 
nection with  the  subject.  He  owned  slaves, 
regretted  it,  and  should  rejoice  to  be  shown 
the  way  out.  The  thing  was  reducing  itself 
as  fast  as  it  was  prudent.  Why  was  such  op- 
position as  this  made  to  the  call  for  the  yeas 
and  nays.  Madison  declared  that  Virginia 
was  reducing  the  number  of  her  slaves.  The 
motion  would  have  a  bad  effect  upon  the 
minds  of  the  slaves,  or  he  might  vote  for  it. 
Nicholas  (Va.)  said  that  Dexter  had  more 
than  once  hinted  a  view  that  a  slave-owner 
was  unfit  for  the  legislature  of  a  republican 
form    of    government ;  and  retorted  that  he 


62       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

should  know  something  of  slavery.  Dexter 
replied  that  the  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  was 
made  with  the  design  to  hold  up  certain 
people  to  public  odium.  He  would  withdraw 
his  amendment,  if  the  Giles  motion  was  with- 
drawn. Heath  (Va.)  said  that  the  introduc- 
tion of  slavery  was  highly  improper.  The 
Constitution  forbade  any  proposal  to  abolish 
it  for  years  to  come.  The  amendment  was 
offered  in  the  face  of  an  express  article  of 
the  Constitution.  Sedgwick  declared,  with 
some  warmth,  that  the  design  in  the  yeas  and 
nays  call  was  to  fix  upon  members  a  stigma  as 
friends  of  nobility,  when  they  were  not  so.  In 
this  agitated  state  the  House  adjourned,  but 
renewed  the  discussion  the  next  day,  and  in 
committee  of  the  whole.^^ 

Bourne  (R.  I.)^^  was  against  both  amend- 
ments. There  were  numerous  checks  against 
nobility  in  the  Constitution.  A  man  could 
renounce  an  hereditary  title  only  for  himself; 
his  children  would  still  inherit  it.  At  this 
point  Dexter  withdrew  his  motion,  in  the  hope 
that  the  yeas  and  nays  would  not  be  taken; 
and  Giles  then  agreed  to  give  up  his  part  of 
the  call.  Hillhouse  was  convinced  by  reflec- 
tion that  the  amendment  would  indirectly  es- 

'^' Annals,  January  2,    1795,  p.    1041. 

*"  The  debate  does  not  show  which  Bourne  this  is,  but  tht 
TOte  of  the  Rhode  Island  member  was  against  both  amendments. 


ACT  OF  1795  63 

tablish  the  principle  that  privileged  orders 
might  exist  among  them,  an  idea  that  he  re- 
jected and  reprobated.  Privileged  orders 
were  merely  local  in  privileges,  yet  this 
motion  tended  to  decide  otherwise.  He  would 
exclude  titled  foreigners  from  naturalization 
to  the  extent  of  voting  and  office-holding. 
Later  he  declared  that  he  would  support  an 
amendment  to  exclude  all  foreigners  from  any 
office.  The  present  amendment,  however, 
was  trifling  and  would  make  them  ridiculous. 
Wadsworth  (Conn.)  knew  nothing  so  impos- 
sible as  the  establishment  of  an  American 
nobility,  and  the  amendment  was  entirely  use- 
less. Fisher  Ames  (Mass.)  opposed  giving 
effect  by  law  to  chimerical  whimsies,  both 
trifling  and  worthless.  Nothing  was  more 
opposite  to  just  principles  than  the  extremes 
of  those  principles. 

Smith  (Md.)  said  that  the  debate  at  first 
bore  a  trifling  appearance,  but  had  called  up 
all  the  warmth  of  the  House.  Gentlemen 
from  the  eastern  states  slighted  the  amend- 
ment as  unnecessary,  but  southern  members 
said  that  they  had  some  reason  to  be  appre- 
hensive. Why  not  yield  to  them  in  concilia- 
tion? Murray  (Md.)  saw  only  ghosts  of  no- 
bility involved,  yet  favored  the  motion  for  his 
colleague's     reason.       Madison     expected     a 


54      NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

British  revolution,  and  expected  the  British 
peerage  to  be  thronging  this  country.  He 
would  sympathize  with  them,  but  not  admit 
them  to  citizenship  until  they  were  constitu- 
tionally qualified.  Giles,  in  replying  to  the 
opposition,  said  that  it  was  admitted  that  the 
Constitution  and  the  will  of  the  people  favored 
the  amendment.  Other  speakers  again  called 
the  proposition  totally  trifling  legislation. 
Congress  could  not  hinder  the  use  of  titles. 
The  Constitution  even  permitted  any  non- 
office-holding  citizen  of  the  United  States  to 
receive  a  title  from  a  foreign  king.  A  natural- 
ized alien  could  accept  his  title  again  an  hour 
after  his  naturalization,  in  spite  of  any  law  of 
Congress. 

The  House  at  length  became  very  im- 
patient for  the  question,  but  discussion  con- 
tinued as  to  whether  the  call  for  the  yeas  and 
nays  was  still  in  force.  Two  motions  were 
made  for  it.  Sedgwick  appealed  to  the  mem- 
bers, and  one  of  them  was  withdrawn.  This 
dispute  ended  when  Blount  (N.  C.)  declared 
that  the  yeas  and  nays  must  and  should  be 
taken,  and  twenty-three  members  seconded 
his  call.  Dexter  immediately  renewed  his 
anti-slave-holding  amendment,  and  required 
a  roll-call  upon  it.  His  motion  was  lost  by  28 
to  63,  while  that  of  Giles  carried  by  59  to  ^2. 


ACT  OF  1795  65 

Only  five  members  voted  for  both  amend- 
ments, and  only  nine  voted  against  both.  The 
five  were  :  from  Massachusetts,  2  ;  from  Rhode 
Island,  Delav^are,  and  Maryland,  each  i.  The 
nine  were :  from  Connecticut,  3 ;  from  Penn- 
sylvania, 2;  and  I  each  from  Rhode  Island, 
New  Jersey,  Virginia,  and  North  Carolina. 
Members  who  voted  for  renouncing  slaves 
were:  from  Massachusetts,  12;  from  New 
York,  5;  from  Connecticut,  4;  from  Pennsyl- 
vania, 2;  and  I  each  from  New  Hampshire, 
Rhode  Island,  New  Jersey,  Delaware,  and 
Maryland.  Against  renouncing  slaves  the  vote 
was :  from  Virginia,  19,  from  North  Carolina, 
9;  from  Pennsylvania,  8;  from  Maryland  and 
South  Carolina,  each  5 ;  from  New  York,  Con- 
necticut, and  New  Hampshire,  each  3 ;  and  2 
each  from  New  Jersey,  Vermont,  Georgia,  and 
Kentucky.  After  this  vote  the  bill  was  re- 
committed, and  came  back  to  the  House  as  a 
measure  to  supersede  entirely  the  act  of  1790. 
The  word  "forever"  was  stricken  from  the 
renouncing  clause,  and  then  the  questions  in- 
volved in  filling  the  blanks  were  discussed  at 
some  length.^^  The  reports  of  this  part  of  the 
debate  are  very  incomplete.  Madison  said 
that  there  was  danger  of  losing  the  bill  alto- 
gether by  mere  waste  of  time,  if  they  descend- 

^'^  January  6,   7,  8. 


66       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

ed  to  discriminate  all  the  qualities  of  a  citizen. 
Both  the  ten  years  and  the  seven  years  that 
had  been  proposed  for  the  first  blank  were 
"by  much  too  long,"  and  would  oblige  the 
friends  of  the  bill  to  oppose  it.  Baldwin  (Ga.) 
suggested  that  the  Constitution  qualified  for  a 
senator  in  nine  years. ^^  Fitzsimmons  said 
that  ten  years  were  much  too  long,  and  would 
make  aliens  enemies  to  the  government. 
Boudinot  referred  to  the  recent  executive 
proclamation  that  the  country  was  an  asylum 
to  the  oppressed  of  all  nations,^^  and  thought 
it  bad  policy  to  admit  them  and  then  refuse 
them,  for  nine  or  ten  years,  the  rights  of  citi- 
zens. 

So  far  as  the  very  incompletely  reported 
debates  show,  defining  naturalization  by  de- 
grees met  with  no  favor.  There  is  also  no 
suggestion  that  states  could  grant  the  right 
to  hold  real  estate  on  their  own  terms,  apart 
from  naturalization. 

The  bill  passed  rapidly  through  the  Sen- 
ate.^* There  was  debate  on  a  motion  to  in- 
sert in  the  first  section : 

^^  In  fact  it  was  a  citizen  and  not  an  alien  that  was  thus 
qualified  by  the   Constitution. 

2^  A  Thanksgiving  proclamation  of  President  Washington,  is- 
sued during  the  debate  on  this  bill  (January  i,  1795),  contained 
the  following:  "to  beseech  the  Kind  Author  of  these  blessings....; 
to  render  this  country  more  and  more  a  safe  and  propitious  asylum 
for  the  unfortunate  of  other  countries." 

-*  The  three  readings  occurred  on  January  9,    14,  and   15. 


ACT  OF  1795  67 

That  no  alien  shall  hereafter  become  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  or  any  of  them,  except  in  the  manner  prescribed  by 
this  act." 

It  was  agreed,  however,  to  insert  the  words 
"any  of"  after  "citizen  of"  in  the  clause  that 
as  amended  reads :  "That  any  aHen,  being  a 
free  white  person,  may  be  admitted  to  become 
a  citizen  of  any  of  the  United  States,  on  the 
following  conditions;"  and  then,  by  a  vote  of 
13  to  11^  "and  not  otherwise"  was  added.  On 
the  last  vote  the  yeas  were :  From  New  Eng- 
land, 7,  and  I  each  from  New  York,  Pennsyl- 
vania, Maryland,  North  Carolina,  South  Caro- 
lina, and  Kentucky ;  the  nays :  2  each  from 
Vermont  and  New  Jersey,  and  i  each  from 
New  Hampshire,  New  York,  Maryland,  Vir- 
ginia, North  Carolina,  Georgia,  and  Ken- 
tucky. Apart  from  a  rather  strong  favorable 
bias  in  New  England,  sectionalism  scarcely 
appears  in  this  vote.  Thus  the  words  "a 
citizen  of  the  United  States"  disappeared  from 
the  bill.  The  idea  that  citizenship  pertained 
to  the  individual  states  dominated  the  Senate. 
The  new  relation  determined  by  naturaliza- 
tion was  state  citizenship.  The  power  vested 
in  Congress  to  establish  a  uniform  rule  of 
naturalization  was  the  power  of  making  state 

2'  This  motion  was  withdrawn  for  amendment  the  following 
day,  after  the  failure  of  an  effort  to  commit  the  bill  and  the  amend- 
ment. 


68       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

citizens  from  aliens.  By  the  final  phrase  the 
assertion  is  made  that  this  power  is  an  ex- 
clusive one.  It  can  hardly  be  that  the  nega- 
tive vote  upon  it  represents  only  opposition 
to  this  view^.  It  is  more  likely  that  it  com- 
prises also  some  who  deemed  that  the  Consti- 
tution itself  was  sufficiently  explicit  in  the 
matter. 

The  question  of  extending  the  act  to  the 
territories  first  appeared  in  connection  with  a 
motion  to  provide  for  the  naturalization  of 
aliens,  dwelling  in  the  territories  southwest 
and  northwest  of  the  Ohio,  in  the  territorial 
courts  upon  the  same  terms  as  elsewhere. 
The  bill  and  this  motion  were  committed  to 
King  (N.  Y.),  Tazewell  (Va.),  and  Brown 
(Ky.)  for  consideration  and  report.  King 
reported  ^^  two  amendments,  which  were 
adopted.  One  was  a  substitute  for  the  first 
paragraph  of  section  i,  in  which  "may  be  ad- 
mitted to  become  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  or  any  of  them,"  replaced  "may  be  ad- 
mitted to  become  a  citizen  of  any  of  the 
United  States."  The  other  struck  out  "there- 
of" from  section  2,  where  it  read: 

That  any  alien  now  residing  within  the  limits  and 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  may  be  admitted 
to  become  a  citizen  thereof,  on  his  declaring  .... 

^^  January    22,    1795. 


ACT  OF  1795  69 

The  necessary  changes  were  made  to  give 
courts  in  the  territories  power  to  naturalize 
therein. ^^  A  final  proposition,  lost,  was  to 
add  a  clause  to  the  bill  in  effect  that  every 
person  naturalized  should,  at  the  time  of  his 
naturalization,  specify  the  names  of  his  minor 
children  resident  in  the  United  States;  and 
that  the  clerk  of  the  court  should  send  a  cer- 
tificate of  the  naturalization,  and  a  list  of  the 
children,  to  the  secretary  of  state  for  record 
at  the  seat  of  the  general  government. 

This  proposition  also  included  provision  for 
a  fee  to  the  clerk  of  the  court  for  each  per- 
son naturalized.  On  this  day,  January  26, 
1795,  the  bill  passed  the  Senate  with  amend- 
ments, which  were  at  once  agreed  to  by  the 
House  of  Representatives.  It  became  a  law 
three  days  later,  with  the  title :  "An  act  to 
establish  an  uniform  rule  of  naturalization; 
and  to  repeal  the  act  heretofore  passed  upon 
that  subject." 

The  conditions  of  naturalization  under  the 
jiew  law  were : 

''■'  The  provision  for  naturalization  in  the  territories  having 
disappeared  after  its  reference  to  King's  committee,  it  was  moved 
to  add  at  the  end  of  the  bill:  "Be  it  further  enacted.  That  the 
provisions  contained  in  this  act  shall  extend  to  the  Northwestern 
and  Southwestern  Territories  respectively."  After  debate  on  two 
days  (wholly  unreported),  it  was  agreed  to  amend  this  motion  by 
a  provision  to  insert  the  necessary  phrases  in  sec.  i.  On  a  later 
day  (January  26)  this  amended  amendment  was  adopted  as  follows: 
"In  line  five,  after  'the  States'  insert  'or  of  the  Territories  North- 
west or  South,  of  the  river  Ohio,'  "  and  provision  was  made  for 
inserting  "or  Territory"   after   "State"   in  line   11. 


70       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

1.  Three  years  before  naturalization  a 
declaration  of  intention  must  be  sworn  to  in 
a  state  or  federal  court.  This  must  cover  two 
points — intention  to  become  a  citizen  and  in- 
tention to  renounce  all  foreign  allegiance. 

2.  At  the  time  of  applying  for  citizenship, 
the  alien  must  declare  on  oath  that  he  has  re- 
sided five  years  in  the  United  States  (and  one 
year  in  the  state  or  territory),  that  he  does 
renounce  all  foreign  allegiance,  and  that  he 
will  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States. 

3.  The  court  must  be  satisfied  of  his  resi- 
dence, good  moral  character  during  the  re- 
quired five  years,  and  that  he  has  been  for  that 
time  "attached  to  the  principles  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  and  well  dis- 
posed to  the  good  order  and  happiness  of  the 
same." 

4.  Any  title  or  order  of  nobility  must  be 
renounced. 

The  bill  made  an  exception  in  favor  of 
aliens  resident  in  the  United  States  at  the  time 
of  its  passage.  They  were  to  be  naturalized 
upon  declaring  two  years'  residence,  and 
meeting  the  other  requirements  above.  The 
provisions  of  the  act  of  1790  in  regard  to 
children  and  proscribed  persons  were  re- 
enacted.    New  points  in  the  law  were :  longer 


ACT  OF  1795  71 

residence  and  a  preliminary  declaration  of  in- 
tention, renunciation  of  former  allegiance  and 
of  any  title  or  order  of  nobility,  more  specific 
mention  of  the  courts  empowered  to  natural- 
ize,^® and  proof  of  attachment  to  the  Consti- 
tution and  the  country.  No  requirement  of 
the  former  law  was  omitted. 

^*  The  act  of  1790  mentioned  "any  common  law  court  of  record 
in  the  state."  This  act  specified  "the  supreme,  superior,  district 
or  circuit  court  of  some  one  of  the  states  or  of  the  territories .... 
or  a  circuit  or  district  court  of  the  United  States." 


CHAPTER  V 
THE  ACT  OF  1798 

During  the  special  session  of  1797^  Brooks 
(N.  Y.),  in  the  House,  expressed  himself  as 
thinking  that  the  naturalization  law  allowed 
foreigners  to  become  citizens  too  soon.  His 
motion  for  a  committee  to  prepare  a  bill  to 
amend  it  was  laid  on  the  table.^ 

The  inaugural  address  of  President  John 
Adams  approached  this  subject  only  in  its 
reference  to  dangers,  if  anything  partial  or 
extraneous  should  infect  the  purity  of  elec- 
tions.^ His  speech  at  the  opening  of  Congress 
in  November  contained  no  specific  reference 
to  the  matter.  His  biographer  and  grandson, 
C.  F.  Adams,  declares  ^  that  he  certainly  de- 
clined to  insert  recommendations,  to  restrict 
the  rights  of  aliens  and  to  restrict  naturaliza- 
tion, that  were  submitted  to  him  by  his  of- 
ficers.^ A  part  of  the  address,  however,  re- 
lated to  the  protection  of  commerce  and  the 
defense  of  the  country;  and  it  was  referred  by 

ijuly    I. 

^Annals  of  Congress,  Fifth   Congress,   First   Session,   421. 

*  John  Adams'   Works,  IX,   108. 

*  Life  of  John  Adams,  II,  300. 

••  Presumably,   members  of  his  cabinet. 

72 


ACT  OF  1798  73 

the  House  to  a  committee  ®  to  inquire  and  re- 
port concerning  any  expedient  measures.^ 

Months  passed  without  a  report  touching 
aliens  or  naturaHzation.  At  length  a  member, 
Coit  (Conn.),  said  that  from  the  present  situ- 
ation he  apprehended  that  changes  in  the 
naturalization  law  would  be  necessary.  He 
proposed  a  resolution  that  the  above-men- 
tioned committee  be  directed  to  inquire  and 
report  whether  it  was  not  expedient  to  sus- 
pend or  amend  the  act  of  1795.  Objection 
was  made  to  the  form  of  his  resolution,  and  it 
lay  on  the  table  two  days.^  It  passed  then 
with  the  wording  changed  to  the  "usual 
form,"  so  that  it  directed  the  committee  "to  in- 
quire and  report  whether  any,  and  what,  al- 
terations may  be  necessary"  in  the  Naturali- 
zation Act  of  1795.  The  same  resolution  also 
instructed  the  same  committee  to  consider 
and  report  upon  the  expediency  of  establish- 
ing by  law  regulations  respecting  aliens  ar- 
riving, or  residing,  within  the  United  States.® 

About  two  weeks  later,  Sewall,  for  the 
committee,  made  a  partial  report,  which  was 
referred  to  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  House 
on  the  State  of  the  Union. ^°     The  committee 

*  Of  seven  members. 

''  House  Journal,  Fifth  Congress,  Second  Session.  93. 
'April    17-19. 

•  House  Journal,   Fifth   Congress,    Second   Session,   366. 
^"Ibid.,   281. 


74       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

declared  that  by  the  act  of  1795  aliens  were 
permitted  to  become  citizens  of  the  United 
States  when  there  was  not  sufficient  evidence 
of  their  attachment  to  the  laws  and  welfare 
of  the  country  to  entitle  them  to  such  a  privi- 
lege, and  that  a  longer  residence  before  their 
admission  was  essential.  It  was  also  of  the 
opinion  that  some  precautions  against  the 
promiscuous  reception  and  residence  of  aliens, 
while  always  advisable,  were  then  more  ap- 
parently necessary  and  important,  especially 
for  securing  and  removing  those  who  might 
be  suspected  of  hostile  intentions.  Three 
resolutions  were  recommended,  in  substance 
as  follows:  (i)  that  provision  ought  to  be 
made  to  prolong  the  residence  to  be  proved  by 
an  alien  before  he  should  be  admitted  to  be- 
come a  citizen  of  the  United  States  or  of  any 
state;  (2)  that  provision  ought  to  be  made  for 
a  detailed  report  and  registry  of  aliens  in  the 
United  States;  (3)  that  provision  be  made  for 
securing  or  removing  alien  enemies,  males  of 
fourteen  years,  after  proclamation  by  the 
president  and  time  allowed  for  removal,  ex- 
cepting such  as  had  a  passport  or  a  license  to 
remain.^^ 

These  resolutions  were  reported  from  the 
committee    of    the    whole    with    very    slight 

11  State  Papers,  XX,    i8o. 


ACT  OF  1798  75 

amendment;  the  first  and  second  were  adopt- 
ed, and  the  third  was  postponed  in  order  that 
amendments  to  it  might  be  debated.  The 
committee  that  made  the  inquiry  was  then 
ordered  to  bring  in  a  bill,  and  on  May  15, 
Sewall  presented  a  bill  supplementary  to  and 
to  amend  the  act  of  1795.^^  Three  days  later 
the  Alien  Enemies'  Bill  was  reported,  and  the 
House,  by  a  vote  of  51  to  40,  authorized  the 
president  to  raise  a  provisional  army  in  prepa- 
ration for  the  expected  war  with  France.^  ^ 
It  is  thus  seen  that  the  new  Naturalization 
Act  was  closely  connected  with  the  war  meas- 
ures of  the  Federalist  party.  The  bill  report- 
ed received  several  amendments  in  committee 
of  the  whole,  was  further  amended  in  the 
House,^*  and  passed  on  May  22.  It  returned 
from  the  Senate,  three  weeks  later,  with 
amendments  which  the  House  at  once  ac- 
cepted ;^°  and  was  signed  by  the  president  on 
June  18,  1798. 

The  debate  on  the  resolutions  began  with 
the  statement  that  five  years  of  residence  was 
a  much  shorter  period  than  France  required; 
and  that  the  committee  thought  that  at  least 
ten  years  should  be  required,  but  might  leave 

^'  House    Journal,    Fifth    Congress,    Second    Session,    284,    285, 
295- 

^^  Ibid.,   301,   303.  "May    21;    ibid.,    305. 

i»  June  13,   1798;  ibid.,  335,  337. 


76       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

the  time  a  blank  in  the  bill.  Harper  (S.  C.) 
referred  to  what  he  called  the  mistake  that 
the  country  fell  into,  in  forming  its  constitu- 
tions/® of  admitting  foreigners.  It  had  been 
productive  of  very  great  evils,  which  he  feared 
w^ould  greatly  increase.  It  was  proper,  and 
the  proper  time,  to  declare  that  only  birth 
should  entitle  a  man  to  citizenship.  The 
United  States  had  had  experience  enough  to 
cure  it  of  its  former  folly  of  belief.  He  pro- 
posed, as  an  amendment  to  the  first  resolu- 
tion, 

that  provision  ought  to  be  made  by  law  for  preventing  any 
person  becoming  entitled  to  the  rights  of  American  citizen- 
ship except  by  birth. 

This  was  declared  to  be  a  substitute  and  was 
ruled  out  of  order.^''^ 

Otis  (Mass.)  moved  that  no  person  alien 
born  and  not  then  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States  should  thereafter  be  capable  of  holding 
any  ofifice  under  the  United  States.  Harper 
moved  to  add,  "or  of  voting  at  the  election  of 
any  members  of  the  Legislature  of  the  United 
States,  or  of  any  State."  This,  he  said,  would 
permit  aliens  to  gain  property  rights  and  resi- 
dence, but  not  citizenship.  He  continued  in 
a  radical  and  at  times  sarcastic  strain.     He 

^*  I.   e.,   state   and   federal. 

^''Annals  of  Congress,  Fifth  Congress,  Second  Session,   1567. 


ACT  OF  1798  77 

would  let  the  descendants  of  aliens,  if  born 
here,  have  rights.  If  the  native-born  citizens 
were  not  adequate  to  the  duties  of  the  gov- 
ernment, they  might  invite  foreigners  to  do 
business  for  them.  If  they  were  adequate,  he 
could  see  no  reason  for  admitting  strangers 
who  could  not  have  the  same  view  of  govern- 
ment as  the  native-born.  He  was  convinced 
that 

it  was  an  essential  policy,  which  lay  at  the  bottom  of  civil 
society,  that  none  but  persons  born  in  the  country  should 
....  take  part  in  the  government. 

To  this  there  might  be  individual  exceptions, 
but  the  Congress  must  maintain  the  general 
rule.  They  would  better  have  adopted  this 
principle  sooner;  he  hoped  they  would  do  it 
then.  Champlin  (R.  I.)  suggested  the  intro- 
duction of  the  word  "civil"  before  "ofHcers" 
in  the  amendment,  so  as  not  to  exclude 
foreigners  from  the  military  and  naval  service 
as  officers.  Smith  (S.  C)  believed  that  the 
first  resolution  was  an  ex  post  facto  one,  and 
that  it  could  not  be  intended  to  limit  the  rights 
of  persons  who  had  been  two  or  three  years 
in  the  United  States  under  the  five-year  law. 
Otis  thought  that  the  objections  of  Smith 
were  partly  well  founded,  and  he  would  avoid 
them  by  providing  for  those  that  had  declared 


78       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

intentions  of  becoming  citizens.     He  wished 
time  to  consider  the  matter  further. 

The  Annals  then  state  that  Harper  with- 
drew his  amendment  in  order  to  examine  the 
Constitution,  "it  being  suggested  that  the  con- 
stitution did  not  permit  restraining  states  in 
the  admission  of  citizens. "^^  This,  I  think, 
must  be  accepted  as  having  clear  and  positive 
reference  to  state,  as  distinct  from  United 
States,  citizenship.  The  constitutional  point 
raised  was  a  difficult  one,  not  easily  met,  at  any 
rate,  by  the  anti-federalist  or  state-rights  in- 
terests. It  cannot  have  been  dependent  upon 
the  1808  clause,  unless  it  is  maintained  that 
"migration  or  importation"  includes  admis- 
sion to  citizenship.  The  objection  that  the 
power, vested  in  Congress  to  establish  a  uni- 
form rule  of  naturalization  was  not  exclusive, 
seems,  indeed,  to  have  been  made  for  a  time; 
but  it  is  almost  unintelligible,  and  must  have 
found  its  support  chiefly  in  interest  rather  than 
in  reason.  At  any  rate,  it  can  scarcely  have 
counted  for  much  with  a  man  intent  upon  ex- 
cluding foreigners  from  office.  He  would  not 
want  Pennsylvania,  for  example,  to  retain  the 
power  of  making  citizens  of  the  United  States. 
One,  and  only  one,  insuperable  constitutional 
objection  to  "restraining  states  in  the  admis- 

ISC/.  cit.,  1569;  May  2,  1798. 


ACT  OF  1798  79 

sion  of  citizens"  is  readily  found,  and  it  ade- 
quately explains  the  allusion.  It  is  "the 
Electors  in  each  State  shall  have  the  Quali- 
fications requisite  for  Electors  in  the  most 
numerous  Branch  of  the  State  Legislature." 
The  nearly  inevitable  conclusion  from  this 
was  that  the  qualifications  of  voters  in  the 
various  states  w^ere  to  differ,  and  were  to  be 
determined  by  each  state  for  itself.  All  the 
existing  facts  in  state  governments  favored 
this  conclusion.  Nothing  could  be  opposed 
to  it  except  the  uniform  rule  of  naturalization 
clause,  or  some  implication  in  it ;  and  the  con- 
ception of  two  distinct  citizenships,  state  and 
federal — a  conception  in  fullest  harmony  with, 
and  with  the  closest  analogies  to,  many  fea- 
tures of  the  dual  government  system — met 
any  difficulty  therein.  Summing  up,  then,  it 
seems  that  the  Constitution  not  only  did  not 
prevent  "restraining  states  in  the  admission" 
of  federal  citizens,  but  did  itself  restrain  them ; 
also,  that  it  clearly  implied  that  there  was 
to  be  no  "restraining  states  in  the  admission" 
of  state  citizens.  The  conclusion  is  that  it 
was  this  latter  fact  that  was  brought  out  in 
the  debate  in  the  language  reported. 

Venable  (Va. )  called  Otis's  resolution  a 
proposition  to  amend  the  Constitution.  The 
latter  had  fixed  the  rights  of  citizens.     For- 


8o       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

eigners  must  be  refused  citizenship  or  ad- 
mitted to  all  of  citizens'  rights.  Congress 
had  no  power  of  saying  that  men  entitled  by 
the  Constitution  to  hold  office  should  not  hold 
offices.  Otis  held  that  citizenship  did  not 
always  include  office-holding;  that  no  alien 
was  ever  permitted  to  hold  office  in  Great 
Britain.^9  Macon  (N.  C.)  declared  that  a 
citizen  must  have  the  rights  of  citizenship, 
and  might  be  elected  or  appointed  to  any 
office  in  spite  of  Congress.  Congress  could 
only  keep  him  from  becoming  a  citizen.  Otis 
replied  that  Congress,  having  absolute  power 
(it  could  exclude  entirely  by  fixing  a  long 
term),  had  conditional  power,  which  was  a 
mere  modification  of  the  former.  He  opposed 
opening  a  door  to  the  intrigues  of  other  coun- 
tries. Certain  countries  paid  chief  attention 
to  influencing  the  internal  affairs  of  countries 
they  wished  to  dominate,  and  these  might  get 
persons  into  the  government.  America  was 
now  getting  to  be  more  important,  and  this 
was  a  reason  for  the  exclusion  sought.     Yet 

1*  12  and  13  Wm.  3,  ch.  2,  provided  that  no  person  born  out 
of  the  kingdom,  except  of  English  parents,  though  naturalized, 
should  be  capable  of  holding  any  office  under  the  king  or  of  receiv- 
ing grants.  By  i  Geo.  i  it  was  provided  that  there  should  be  no 
future  naturalization  without  a  clause  declaring  such  disability,  and 
that  no  naturalization  bill  should  be  received  without  such  a  clause. 
The  clause  is,  accordingly,  found  in  all  later  acts  on  the  subject 
before  the  Naturalization  Act  of  1870.  See  13  Geo.  2,  ch.  7,  and  20 
Geo.  2,  ch.  44,  which  remained  in  force  until  1870.  (English 
Statutes  at  Large). 


ACT  OF  1798  81 

he  would  accept  the  plan  for  extending  the 
residence  term.  Sitgreaves  (Pa.)  desired  to 
attain  the  object  sought,  but  would  avoid  con- 
stitutional embarrassment.  The  way  to  do 
this  was  to  extend  the  term  of  residence 
to  prevent  aliens  ever  becoming  citizens. 
There  was  no  doubt  as  to  "member  of  Con- 
gress being  an  office." 

Otis  then  withdrew  his  amendment,  and 
the  three  resolutions  were  agreed  to  by  the 
committee  of  the  whole  without  a  dissenting 
voice.  The  House  at  once  concurred  in  the 
first  and  second  resolutions,  but  discussed  the 
one  that  became  the  basis  of  the  Alien  Ene- 
mies' Act.  The  questions  at  issue  were  its 
effect  upon  immigration  and  upon  the  coun- 
try's institutions  and  independence. 

McDowell  (N.  C.)  said  that  some  parts  of 
the  country  still  wanted  population,  even  if 
others  did  not,  and  he  did  not  wish  to  dis- 
tress the  minds  of  foreigners.  Rutledge  (S. 
C.)  asserted  that  the  change  proposed  would 
encourage  immigration,  by  giving  greater  se- 
curity of  good  government.  Foreigners  came 
to  America  to  live  under  good  government. 
The  president  should  have  the  power  to  send 
away  any  emissaries  of  a  government  even 
if  not  at  war  with  it. 

Sitgreaves   (Pa.)   considered  the  proposed 


82       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

law  an  essential  feature  of  the  system  of  de- 
fense. There  was  a  cankerworm  in  the  heart 
of  the  country,  and  no  occasion  for  specific 
proof  of  it.  The  fact  was  well  understood  by 
every  member  of  the  House.  France  ad- 
mitted no  alien  even  to  residence  without  a 
card  of  hospitality.  The  measure  involved 
no  danger  to  any  persons  that  were  well  dis- 
posed. 

Allen  (Conn.)  moved  to  amend  in  favor  of 
giving  the  president  power  at  any  time  to  re- 
move any  alien,  but  soon  after  withdrew  his 
amendment.  He  held  that  the  citizens  of  sev- 
eral other  countries  were  as  dangerous  as 
those  of  France,  were  equally  hostile,  were 
even  more  so.  Recently  there  had  been  a  vast 
number  of  naturalizations  in  Philadelphia  to 
support  a  particular  party  in  a  particular  elec- 
tion. French  agents  and  diplomacy  had  over- 
come Venice,  Switzerland,  and  Rome,  when 
they  were  in  a  much  less  alarming  situation 
than  that  of  the  United  States. 

Otis's  amendment,  withdrawn  in  committee, 
came  up  again  in  some  unknown  way,  and  was 
defeated  by  a  vote  of  55  to  27.  Otis  opposed, 
ineffectually,  an  effort  to  restrict  the  new 
power  of  the  president  to  a  state  of  declared 
war.  He  held  that  the  measure  was  of  no 
use,   if   not   applicable   to   the   existing  state. 


ACT  OF  1798  83 

Considerable  discussion  followed,  and  the 
question  of  a  constitutional  right  to  exclude 
aliens  not  enemies  before  1808  was  raised.^" 
In  the  outcome  the  resolutions  were  all  re- 
ferred back  tO'  SewalTs  committee,  with  in- 
structions to  report  bills. ^* 

The  debate  in  the  House  on  the  naturali- 
zation bill  was  mostly  on  one  day.^^  Sewall's 
motion  to  fill  the  blank  time  between  the 
declaration  of  intention  and  naturalization 
with  five  years  carried,  apparently  without 
discussion.  He  followed  it  with  a  motion  to 
fill  the  blank  time  of  residence  with  fourteen 
years.  McDowell  did  not  wish  to  discourage 
immigration,  and  held  it  to  be  to  their  interest 
to  attach  foreigners  to  the  country.  He  would 
not  object  to  seven  or  nine  years.  The  record 
states  that  fourteen  years  carried  by  a  vote 
of  40  to  41.^^  Again,  on  Sewall's  motion,  an 
amendment  carried  to  the  effect  that  no  alien 
be  admitted  to  citizenship  from  a  country  at 
war  with  the  United  States. 

At  this  point  Gallatin,  the  indomitable 
leader  of  the   opposition   to   the   Federalists, 

'i'^  Annals  of  Congress,  Fifth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1570  f. ; 
May  3,    1798. 

2'  House  Journal,  Fifth  Congress,  Second  Session,  285,  290. 
The  membership  of  the  committee  remained  unchanged,  except  that 
Brooks   (N.   Y.)    replaced   Livingston    (N.   Y.). 

*2  May   21,    1798. 

^^  Annals  of  Congress,  Fifth  Congress,   Second  Session,    1776. 


84      NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

who  soon  became  so  well  hated  by  them  that 
they  aimed  a  constitutional  amendment  at  him 
to  exclude  him  from  Congress,  set  himself 
earnestly  to  the  task  of  protecting  the  inter- 
ests of  aliens  that  were  already  in  the  United 
States.  He  began  by  inquiring  as  to  the  retro- 
spective effect  of  the  proposed  law.  Three  classes, 
he  said,  were  to  be  affected  by  it.    They  were : 

1.  Aliens  who  were  in  the  United  States 
before  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  and 
not  naturalized  by  any  state  law  before  the 
passage  of  the  act  of  1790. 

2.  All  aliens  who  might  have  been  natur- 
alized under  the  act  of  1790. 

3.  Those  who  had  declared  their  inten- 
tion to  become  citizens  under  the  act  of  1795. 

He  hoped  that  an  exception  would  be  made 
for  all  these.  The  law  of  1795  had  favored 
all  aliens  who  were  in  the  United  States  at 
the  time  of  its  passage. 

Gallatin  dwelt  at  some  length  upon  the 
anomalous  conditions  and  the  misunderstand- 
ings that  had  grown  out  of  the  change  from 
state  to  federal  control  of  naturalization,  and 
spoke  of  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  many 
residents  of  frontier  districts  in  complying 
with  the  naturalization  requirements.  These 
points  were  brought  up  in  explanation  of  the 


ACT  OF  1798  85 

neglect  of  many  aliens  for  a  considerable  time 
to  become  citizens,  and  to  show  that  such  neg- 
lect could  not  properly  be  held  to  imply  a  dis- 
regard for  the  privilege  of  citizenship.  He 
said  that  there  were  "a  great  number"  of  per- 
sons in  Pennsylvania  who  were  not  citizens  of 
the  United  States,  but  who,  nevertheless,  be- 
lieved that  they  were  citizens.  He  declared 
that  it  was  a  common  error  in  most  of  the 
states  that  naturalization  by  a  state  since  1790 
made  the  person  a  citizen  of  the  United  States. 
The  mayor  of  Philadelphia,  he  said,  had  ad- 
mitted citizens  under  the  state  law  until  1795, 
and  these  had  considered  themselves  to  be  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States.  This  opinion,  that 
a  state  had  a  right  to  naturalize,  although 
based  upon  a  construction  that  he  had  always 
thought  to  be  wrong,  had  until  lately  gen- 
erally prevailed.  In  Philadelphia,  at  the  late 
election,  respectable  merchants,  who  had  pre- 
viously obtained  American  register  for  their 
vessels  on  the  presumption  that  they  were 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  were  refused 
the  suffrage.  The  same  mistaken  view  as  to 
the  status  of  those  admitted  to  citizenship  by 
the  states  had  prevailed  in  other  parts  of  the 
Union.  He  presumed  that  since  1795  nearly 
all  of  those  whose  citizenship  of  the  United 
States  could  be  questioned,  and  who  are  near 


86       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

a  court,  had  been  naturalized  under  the  fed- 
eral act.  People  who  were  from  two  hundred 
to  three  hundred  miles  from  a  district  court 
of  the  United  States  had  not  always  had  an 
opportunity  to  be  naturalized, 

especially  on  account  of  a  construction  of  the  Act  of  1795, 
which  had  prevailed  in  some  counties  of  Pennsylvania, 
and  which  made  it  doubtful  whether  any  court  in  the  State, 
out  of  the  city  [i.  e.,  Philadelphia],  could  administer  the 
oath  of  citizenship. 

Now  they  had  discovered  that  they  were  not 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  they  had 
had  no  opportunity  to  become  such  since  find- 
ing it  out.  He  would  give  a  limited  period  dur- 
ing which  these  might  still  have  the  benefit  of 
the  existing  law, 

Sewall  defended  the  measure  of  his  com- 
mittee, a  majority  of  which,  he  declared, 
thought  that  no  exception  should  be  made. 
He  himself  was  decidedly  opposed  to  any  al- 
teration. Those  who  had  neglected  their  op- 
portunities could  place  no  high  value  upon 
citizenship.  They  could  already  hold  lands, 
and,  judging  from  the  then  distracted  state  of 
the  country,  it  was  not  wise  to  make  them  eli- 
gible in  five  years  to  seats  in  the  government. 
The  United  States  had  given  unexampled  lib- 
erty of  citizenship,  and  it  was  then  high  time 
to  remedy  the  resulting  evils.     The  proposed 


ACT  OF  1798  87 

regulations  were  shown  to  be  necessary  by 
the  existing  conditions,  and  created  no  disad- 
vantage, for  the  persons  affected  had  had  lit- 
tle chance  of  becoming  members  of  the  gov- 
ernment they  had  left.  Their  change  in  com- 
ing here  had  vastly  improved  their  opportuni- 
ties. There  was  no  good,  but  much  danger, 
in  the  proposed  change. 

Gallatin  was  unconvinced,  and  moved  as  an 
amendment,  in  accordance  with  the  views 
that  he  had  expressed,  the  following:  that  any 
alien,  resident  in  the  United  States  before  the 
passage  of  the  act  of  1795,  and  any  alien  who 
had  made  the  preliminary  declaration  re- 
quired by  that  act,  might  be  naturalized  under 
its  provisions. 

Craik  (Md.)  would  prevent  any  foreigner, 
coming  thereafter,  from  ever  becoming  a  citi- 
zen; yet  he  thought  that  retrospective  action 
was  unjust.  His  statements  corroborated 
those  of  Gallatin  as  to  the  continued  practice 
of  state  naturalization,  and  the  existing  uncer- 
tainties as  to  its  effect.  Many  aliens,  he  said, 
were  not  naturalized  under  any  law,  while 
many  others  were  naturalized  under  state 
laws.  There  was  much  doubt  of  the  legality 
of  the  latter,  though,  he  declared,  in  Mary- 
land and  Virginia  "foreigners  are  still  nat- 
uralized by  the  states." 


88       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

Bayard  (Del.)  said  that,  as  states  allowed 
aliens  to  vote  for  both  state  and  United  States 
offices,  the  only  privilege  denied  to  them  was 
"the  capacity  of  becoming  members  of  the 
Federal  Government."  It  was  sound  policy  to 
deny  this  for  the  future,  even  to  aliens  already 
in  the  United  States.  The  naturalization 
laws  were  no  compact,  but  mere  favors.  In 
reference  to  favoring  persons  already  in  the 
United  States,  he  thought  that  as  many  Ja- 
cobins and  vagabonds  had  come  within  the 
last  two  years  as  might  come  in  ten  years 
more.  Macon  (N.  C.)  said  that  those  with 
particular  ends  to  be  served  were  in  already, 
and  he  would  have  regard  to  the  lack  of  op- 
portunity and  the  ignorance  of  the  others. 
Sewall  asserted  that  the  proposed  amendment 
offered  to  all  aliens  in  the  United  States  the 
opportunity  to  make  the  required  declaration 
before  the  law  passed. 

There  was,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  just  four 
weeks  between  the  introduction  of  this 
amendment  and  the  enactment  of  the  law; 
and  another  month  had  then  passed  since  the 
agitation  of  the  matter  of  more  stringent  nat- 
uralization laws  had  begun  in  Congress. 
Either  one  or  two  months  was  doubtless  a 
sufficient  time  for  sending  important  public 
information  to  distant  parts  of  the  country. 


ACT  OF  1798  89 

Neither  period,  however,  would  have  nearly- 
sufficed  to  apprise  aliens  generally,  even  in 
the  near-by  states,  that  an  important  measure 
seriously  affecting  their  interests  was  pend- 
ing in  Congress.  And  much  more  than  know- 
ing that  mere  fact  was  essential  for  their  tak- 
ing even  simple  steps  to  ward  off  the  dangers. 
It  is,  I  think,  doubtful  whether  many  aliens 
outside  of  a  few  large  cities  would  within  the 
given  time,  as  matters  then  were,  have  felt 
any  particular  stimulus  from  the  proposed 
legislation  leading  them  to  declare  intention 
of  citizenship. 

Returning  to  the  argument  made  at  the 
time,  Sitgreaves  (Pa.)  thought  that  a  mere 
matter  of  expediency  was  involved  in  the  ques- 
tion at  issue,  and  that  the  dangers  existing 
were  too  patent  to  admit  of  the  amendment. 
Claiborne  said  that  his  state  (Tenn.)  had  been 
represented  in  Congress  only  since  the  winter 
before,  and  it  was  therefore  not  strange  that 
many  did  not  know  the  law.  They  had  no 
post-road  and  no  newspaper.  It  would  be  a 
great  injury  to  deprive  them  of  their  right. 
They  had  fought  and  bled  in  the  service  of 
the  United  States,  and  were  as  much  wedded 
to  the  government  as  were  any  people.  J. 
Williams  (N.  Y.)  declared  that,  while  aliens 
might    hold    land    "by    the    laws    of    several 


90       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

states,"  they  also  were  taxed  and  should  be 
represented.  The  motion  of  Gallatin  pre- 
vailed in  the  committee  of  the  whole  with  52 
votes  in  its  favor. 

In  the  House  Coit  (Conn.)  opposed  favor- 
ing those  who  were  in  the  United  States  be- 
fore 1795,  and  had  taken  no  steps  to  become 
citizens.  His  amendment  was  lost  by  49  to  32 
votes.  Sitgreaves  proposed  to  amend  the 
amendment  of  Gallatin  so  as  to  give  one  year's 
time  in  which  to  act  to  those  in  the  United 
States  before  1795,  and  to  allow  to  those  hav- 
ing given  notice  by  a  declaration  of  intention 
four  years  from  the  time  of  the  notice.  An 
amendment  to  change  one  year  to  two  years 
was  lost  by  a  vote  of  31  to  39.  One  year  then 
carried  with  59  votes  for  it.  Four  years  car- 
ried by  a  vote  of  47  to  31. 

Bayard  (Del.)  ^^  sought  to  suspend  the 
operation  of  the  bill  for  a  limited  time,  to 
avoid  the  danger  at  that  time  of  too  great  re- 
strictions in  a  new  law,  but  failed  on  a  point 
of  order.  The  bill  then  went  to  the  Senate, 
and  the  House  turned  its  attention  to  the 
Alien  Enemies'  Bill.^^ 

The  Senate  referred  the  naturalization 
bill  ^^  to  a  special  committee, ^"^  and  continued 

2*  May  22,   1798. 

^*  House  Journal,   Fifth  Congress,   Second  Session,  306,  309. 

28  May   23,    1798. 

"  Bingham    (Pa.),    Stockton    (N.   J.),    and   Tazewell    (Va.). 


ACT  OF  1798  91 

the  consideration  of  its  own  "bill  concerning 
aliens,"  or  the  Alien  Friends'  Bill.  Lawrence 
moved  to  amend  this  by  providing  that  it 
should  not  be  construed  to  affect  any  alien 
who  had  come  to  the  United  States  for  the 
purpose  of  becoming  a  citizen,  had  made  the 
required  declaration,  and  had  "renounced  his 
allegiance  and  fidelity"  according  to  the  act 

of    1795;    or    may    do    so    "within days." 

The  clause  allowing  future  declaration  of  in- 
tention was  stricken  out  by  a  vote  of  14  to  10. 
The  amendment  carried,  20  to  4.  Those  op- 
posed to  it  were  Goodhue  (Mass.),  Lloyd 
(Md.),  Paine  (Vt.),  and  Read  (S.  C.).^^ 

The  naturalization  bill  was  reported  with 
amendments,^^  the  nature  of  which  is  un- 
known. Presumably  they  were  of  minor  im- 
portance. The  Senate  amended  the  bill  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  report,  and  upon  its  third 
reading  Anderson  (Tenn.),  representing  the 
interests  of  the  unsettled  West,  moved  to 
strike  out  fourteen  and  insert  seven  years  as 
the  required  residence  term.  The  vote  on 
this  proposition  was  :  yeas,  10;  nays,  11.^^    The 

^^  Annals  of  Congress,  Fifth  Congress,  Second  Session,  567; 
May  29,    1798. 

"June  8. 

80  Yeas:  Anderson  (Tenn.),  Bloodworth  (N.  C),  Brown  (Ky.), 
Foster  (R.  I.),  Marshall  (Ky.).  Martin  (N.  C).  Mason  (Va.), 
Tattnall  (Ga.),  Tazewell  (Va.) ;  nays:  Ringham  (Pa.).  Chipman 
(Vt.),  Goodhue  (Mass.),  Hillhouse  (Conn.),  Latimer  (Del.),  Law- 
rence (N.  Y.),  Livermore  (N.  H.),  Paine  (Vt.),  Read  (S.  C), 
Stockton   (N.  J.),  Tracy  (Conn.). 


92       NATUIL^LIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

yeas  were  one  each  from  Rhode  Island,  New 
York,  Tennessee,  and  Georgia;  and  two  each 
from  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  and  Kentucky. 
Vermont  and  Connecticut  each  furnished 
two  nays,  and  New  Hampshire,  Massachu- 
setts, New  York.  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania, 
Delaware,  and  South  Carolina,  each  one.  The 
vote  of  New  York  was  divided.  Those  ab- 
sent or  not  voting  were  the  two  senators  from 
Maryland,  and  one  each  from  New  Hamp- 
shire, Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  New  Jer- 
sey, Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland, 
South  Carolina,  Georgia,  and  Tennessee. 
The  affirmative  vote,  with  the  exception  of 
the  one  vote  from  Rhode  Island,  was  entirely 
from  states  having  extensive  frontier  areas. 
The  negative  vote  was  chiefly  from  the  older 
settled  states. 

The  bill  from  the  House,  and  as  it  was 
finally  passed,  contained  in  the  first  section 
the  provision : 

That  no  alien  shall  be  admitted  to  become  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  or  of  any  state,  unless  in  the  manner  pre- 
scribed in  the  act. 

After  the  failure  of  his  amendment  to  re- 
duce the  residence  requirement  to  seven 
years,  Anderson  offered  another,  apparently 
intended  to  remove  from  the  bill  recognition 
of  federal  citizenship,  and  to  establish  the  view, 


ACT  OF  1798  93 

SO  prevalent  later  in  the  State  Rights'  party, 
that  only  state  citizenship  had  any  real  ex- 
istence under  the  Constitution.  He  moved  to 
insert  "any  of  the  United  States"  in  place  of 
"the  United  States,  or  of  any  state,"  in  sec.  i 
of  the  bill  as  above.  The  vote  taken  on  strik- 
ing out  the  phrase  shows  the  same  persons 
voting  as  on  the  seven-year  proposition. 
Eight  supported  the  change,  and  thirteen  op- 
posed it.  The  only  changes  from  the  previous 
vote  were  that  Foster,  of  Rhode  Island,  and 
Martin,  of  North  Carolina,  went  over  to  the 
side  of  the  majority.  The  bill  passed,  after 
further  unrecorded  amendment,  13  to  8.  The 
thirteen  were  the  same  persons  as  opposed 
the  above  amendment,  and  the  eight  were  the 
supporters  of  it.  Every  opposition  vote  on 
the  final  passage  of  the  bill  was  from  a  state 
naturally  desirous  of  immigration.  The  oppo- 
sition to  France  that  culminated  with  the  X. 
Y.  Z.  exposures  carried  a  number  of  votes  for 
the  measure,  in  spite  of  strong  local  interest  in 
favor  of  attracting  immigration.^^ 

Near  the  end  of  the  year  of  special  privilege 
that  the  new  law  offered  certain  aliens,  the 
South  Carolina  Gazette  announced^^  that  it 
was    "very    probable"    that   there    were    "many 

'^^  Annals  of  Congress,  Fifth  Congress,   Second  Session,   561-77; 
May  22  to  June  12. 
*^  June    13,     1799. 


94       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

persons  in  this  state"  who  intended  to  become 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  informed 
any  such  who  were  in  the  United  States  be- 
fore January  29,  1795,  that  they  must  apply 
before  June  18,  1799 — i.  e.,  within  the  next 
five  days — or  they  would  be  on  the  footing  of 
new  aliens,  and  would  be  required  to  give  five 
years'  notice  and  make  proof  of  fourteen 
years'  residence. 

A  few  months  later,^^  a  House  committee 
reported  on  the  petition  of  certain  aliens  of 
Mount  Pleasant,  N.  Y.  These  represented 
that  they  came  into  the  United  States  before 
the  passage  of  the  act  of  1798,  and  had  omitted 
to  make  the  declaration  required  to  secure 
them  admission  under  the  act  of  1795.  They 
now  requested  the  passage  of  an  act  securing 
to  them  the  rights  they  would  have  had,  had 
they  made  such  declaration.  The  committee 
saw  nothing  warranting  a  deviation  from  the 
general  rule.  They  believed  the  law  of  1798 
to  be  fair  and  just,  and  fourteen  years  not  too 
long  to  conciliate  the  feelings  of  aliens  to  the 
manners,  laws,  and  government  of  their  new 
country.  They  thought  that  the  attachment 
of  a  man  to  his  native  country  would  not  be 
obliterated  in  five  years  so  as  to  make  it 
prudent  to  repose  the  confidence  in  him  that 

''  March  4,    1800. 


ACT  OF  1798  95 

the  government  must  place  in  its  own  citizens. 
Hence,  they  held,  the  prayer  of  the  petitioners 
ought  not  to  be  granted.^* 

In  the  closing  months  of  Adams'  adminis- 
tration a  resolution  presented  in  the  House 
resulted  in  the  appointment  ^^  of  a  committee 
to  inquire  and  report,  by  bill  or  otherwise,  as 
to  the  expediency  of  amending  the  naturaliza- 
tion acts;  to  admit  to  the  benefit  of  the  act  of 
1795  all  persons  entitled  to  it  before  the  pas- 
sage of  the  later  act  and  since  resident  in  the 
United  States;  or  to  consider  and  report  on 
the  expediency  of  repealing  the  act  of  1798. 
Another  resolution,  referred  the  same  day 
to  the  same  committee,  directed  inquiry  as  to 
the  expediency  of  admitting  aliens  in  the 
United  States  before  January  29,  1795,  and 
since  resident  therein,  to  become  citizens. 
The  first  of  these  contemplated  reviving 
the  residence  requirement  of  the  act  of  1795 
for  the  benefit  of  a  limited  number  of  aliens, 
or  of  extending  the  provisions  of  that  act  to 
all  aliens.  The  other  resolution  proposed  to 
admit  to  citizenship  upon  special  terms  all 
such  aliens  as  had  been  in  the  United  States 
the  specified  time,  about  six  years.  A  bill 
was   reported  ^^   to   extend   the   privileges   of 

**  American  State  Papers,   XX,  208,   No.    125. 
^^  January   30,    1801. 
"  February  6,    i8oi. 


96       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

the  former  act  to  a  limited  class  of  aliens, 
but  the  session  expired  with  it  unconsidered. 
A  petition  for  private  naturalization,  the  first 
observed  since  1790,  was  referred  and  neg- 
lected also.^'  The  Federalist  party  record 
upon  this  subject  ends  here. 

*'  House    Journal,    Sixth    Congress,    Second    Session,    781,    788, 
804. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  ACT  OF  1802 

Jefferson's  message  at  the  opening  of  Con- 
gress in  December,  1801,  contained  the  follow- 
ing passage : 

I  cannot  omit  recommending  a  revisal  of  the  laws  on 
the  subject  of  naturalization.  Considering  the  ordinary 
chances  of  human  life,  a  denial  of  citizenship  under  a  resi- 
dence of  fourteen  years  is  a  denial  to  a  great  proportion  of 
those  who  ask  it,  and  controls  a  policy  pursued  from  their 
first  settlement  by  many  of  these  states,  and  still  believed  of 
consequence  to  their  prosperity ;  and  shall  we  refuse  to  the 
unhappy  fugitives  from  distress  that  hospitality  which  the 
savages  of  the  wilderness  extended  to  our  fathers  arriving 
in  this  land?  Shall  oppressed  humanity  find  no  asylum  on 
this  globe?  The  constitution,  indeed,  has  wisely  provided 
that  for  admission  to  certain  offices  of  important  trust  a 
residence  shall  be  required  sufficient  to  develop  character 
and  design.  But  might  not  the  general  character  and 
capabilities  of  a  citizen  be  safely  communicated  to  every 
one  manifesting  a  bona  fide  purpose  of  embarking  his  life 
and  fortunes  permanently  with  us,  with  restrictions,  per- 
haps, to  guard  against  the  fraudulent  usurpation  of  our 
flag,  an  abuse  which  brings  so  much  embarrassment  and 
loss  on  the  genuine  citizen  and  so  much  danger  to  the 
nation  of  being  involved  in  war,  that  no  endeavor  should 
be  spared  to  detect  and  suppress  it.' 

Vigorous  and  comprehensive  attacks  were 
made  by  the  Federalist  press  upon  the  mes- 

^  House  Journal,  Seventh  Congress,  First  Session,  1 1. 
97 


98       NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

sage;  but  generally  they  are  noticeable  for 
the  lack  of  any  reference  to  the  naturalization 
question.  Neither  the  editorial  review  of  the 
message  in  the  Washington  Federalist,^  nor 
six  articles  upon  it  copied  from  the  Anti- 
Democrat,  mention  it.  To  infer  from  these 
a  lack  of  desire  to  defend  the  existing  law 
seems  justifiable. 

However,  Hamilton,  in  a  series  of  eighteen 
articles  upon  the  message,  which  he  signed 
"Lucius  Crassus,"  devoted  two  to  naturaliza- 
tion and  a  consideration  of  Jefferson's  con- 
sistency in  regard  to  it.^     He  said : 

The  next  most  objectionable  feature  in  the  message,  is 
the  proposal  to  abolish  all  restrictions  on  naturalization, 
arising  from  a  previous  residence. 

This,  he  continued,  was  at  variance  with  the 
maxims  of  all  commentators  on  popular  gov- 
ernment, and  with  Jefferson  himself. 

The  notes  on  Virginia  are  in  direct  contradiction  to  the 
Message,  and  furnish  us  with  strong  reasons  against  the 
policy  now  recommended. 

The  passage  from  Jefferson's  Notes  (writ- 
ten in  1781)  quoted  by  Hamilton  is  as  fol- 
lows •} 

Here  I  will  beg  leave  to  propose  a  doubt.    The  present 
desire  of  America   is   to   produce   rapid  population   by   as 
"  December   16,    180 1.  *  Hamilton's   Works,   VII,   236. 

*  Jefferson's    Writings,    III,    190. 


ACT  OF  1802  99 

great  importation  of  foreigners  as  possible.  But  is  this 
founded  in  good  policy?''  The  advantage  proposed  is  the 
multiplication  of  numbers.  Now  let  us  suppose  (for 
example  only)  that,  in  thi?  state,  we  could  double  our 
numbers  in  one  year  by  the  importation  of  foreigners ;  and 
this  is  a  greater  accession  than  the  most  sanguine  advocate 
for  emigration  has  a  right  to  expect.  Then  I  say,  beginning 
with  a  double  stock,  we  shall  attain  any  given  degree  of 
population    only    twenty-seven    years    and    three    months 

sooner  than   if  we   proceeded   on   our   single   stock 

But  are  there  no  inconveniences  to  be  thrown  into  the  scale 
against  the  advantages  expected  from  a  multiplication  of 
numbers  by  the  importation  of  foreigners?  It  is  for  the 
happiness  of  those  united  in  society  to  harmonize  as  much 
as  possible  in  matters  which  they  must  of  necessity  transact 
together.  Civil  government  being  the  sole  object  of  form- 
ing societies,  its  administration  must  be  conducted  by 
common  consent.  Every  species  of  government  has  its 
specific  principles.  Ours  perhaps  are  more  peculiar  than 
those  of  any  other  in  the  universe.  It  is  a  composition  of 
the  freest  principles  of  the  English  constitution,  with  others 
derived  from  natural  right  and  from  natural  reason.  To 
these  nothing  can  be  more  opposed  than  the  maxims  of 
absolute  monarchies.  Yet  from  such  we  are  to  expect  the 
greatest  number  of  emigrants.  They  will  bring  with  them 
the  principles  of  the  governments  they  leave,  imbibed  in 
their  early  youth ;  or,  if  able  to  throw  them  off  it  will  be  in 
exchange  for  an  unbounded  licentiousness,  passing  as  is 
usual,  from  one  extreme  to  another.  It  would  be  a  miracle 
were  they  to  stop  precisely  at  the  point  of  temperate  liberty. 
These  principles,  with  their  language,  they  will  transmit  to 
their  children.  In  proportion  to  their  numbers,  they  will 
share  with  us  the  legislation.    They  will  infuse  into  it  their 

'  Hamilton  omits  from  this  point  to  "But  arc  there"  below. 


loo     NATUR.\LIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

spirit,  warp  and  bias  its  directions,  and  render  it  a  hetero- 
geneous, incoherent,  distracted  mass.  I  may  appeal  to 
experience,  during  the  present  contest,  for  a  verification  of 
these  conjectures.  But,  if  they  be  not  certain  in  event,  are 
they  not  possible,  are  they  not  probable?  Is  it  not  safer 
to  wait  with  patience  twenty-seven  years  and  three  months 
longer,"  for  the  attainment  of  any  degree  of  population 
desired  or  expected?  May  not  our  government  be  more 
homogeneous,  more  peaceable,  more  durable?  Suppose 
twenty  millions  of  Republican  Americans  thrown  all  of  a 
sudden  into  France,  what  would  be  the  condition  of  that 
kingdom?  If  it  would  be  more  turbulent,  less  happy,  less 
strong,  we  may  believe  that  the  addition  of  half  a  million 
of  foreigners  to  our  present  numbers  would  produce  a 
similar  effect  here. 

At  this  point  Hamilton  ended  his  quota- 
tion, stopping  just  before  the  most  important 
sentence  that  Jefferson  wrote.    It  reads : 

If  they  come  of  themselves  they  are  entitled  to  all  the 
rights  of  citizenship ;  but  I  doubt  the  expediency  of  inviting 
them  by  extraordinary  inducements. 

Jefferson  also  added  that  he  would  not  ex- 
tend "these  doubts"  to  the  importation  of 
useful  artificers. 

Spare  no  expense  in  obtaining  them.  They  will  after 
a  while  go  to  the  plow  and  hoe ;  but  in  the  meantime  they 
will  teach  us  something  we  do  not  know. 

Hamilton  continued  that  the  impolicy  of 
admitting  foreigners  to  the  suffrage  imme- 
diately was  an  axiom.  The  United  States  had 
already  felt  the   evils  of  incorporating  large 

'  Hamilton  omits  the  last  six  words. 


ACT  OF  1802  lOi 

numbers  of  foreigners.  Classes  and  antipa- 
thies resulted.  In  the  infancy  of  the  country, 
with  a  boundless  waste  to  people,  "it  was 
politic  to  give  a  facility  to  naturalization;  but 
our  situation  is  now  changed,"  and  the  nat- 
ural growth  was  sufficiently  rapid.  He  did 
not  mean 

to  contend  for  a  total  prohibition  of  the  right  of  citizenship 
to  strangers,  nor  even  for  the  very  long  residence  which  is 
now  a  prerequisite  to  naturalization,  and  which  of  itself 
goes  far  toward  a  denial  of  that  privilege.  The  present 
law  was  merely  a  temporary  measure  adopted  under  pecu- 
liar circumstances,  and  perhaps  demanded  a  revision.  But 
there  is  a  wide  difference  between  closing  the  door 
altogether  and  throwing  it  entirely  open,  between  a  post- 
ponement of  fourteen  years  and  an  immediate  admission  to 
all  the  rights  of  citizenship.  Some  reasonable  term  ought 
to  be  allowed  to  enable  aliens  to  get  rid  of  foreign  and 
acquire  American  attachments ;  to  learn  the  principles  and 
imbibe  the  spirit  of  our  government ;  and  to  admit  of  a 
probability,  at  least,  of  their  feeling  a  real  interest  in  our 
affairs.  A  residence  of  not  less  than  five  years  ought  to  be 
required.  If  the  rights  of  naturalization  may  be  communi- 
cated by  parts,  and  it  is  not  perceived  why  they  may  not  be, 
those  peculiar  to  the  conducting  of  business  and  the  acquisi- 
tion of  property,  might  with  propriety  be  at  once  conferred, 
upon  receiving  proof  by  certain  prescribed  solemnities,  of 
the  intention  of  the  candidates  to  become  citizens,  post- 
poning all  political  privileges  to  the  ultimate  term.  To 
admit  foreigners  indiscriminately  to  the  rights  of  citizens, 
the  moment  they  put  foot  in  our  country,  as  recommended 
in  the  message,  would  be  nothing  less  than  to  admit  the 
Grecian  horse  into  the  citadel  of  our  liberty  and  sovereignty. 


I02     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

In  considering  the  justice  of  Hamilton's 
criticism  upon  the  position  of  Jefferson,  we 
must  first  remember  that  the  Notes  relate  to 
Virginia  alone.  Then  the  facts  of  a  new  gov- 
ernment, greatly  enlarged  territory,  and  the 
lapse  of  twenty  years  at  the  time  of  the  mes- 
sage are  to  be  considered;  also  the  different 
conditions  affecting  the  production  of  a  lit- 
erary work  and  an  important  state  paper. 
Consider  also  that  in  the  Notes  th^  subject  in 
hand  was  emigration  and  increased  popula- 
tion, and  that  Jefferson  began  with,  "I  will 
beg  leave  to  propose  a  doubt,"  and  ended 
with,  "I  doubt  the  expediency  of  inviting  them 
by  extraordinary  inducements."  Note  care- 
fully the  restrictive  effect  of  ''expediency," 
"inviting,"  and  "extraordinary  inducements." 
Consider  that  he  asserted  the  desirability  of 
getting  certain  classes  of  foreign  immigrants, 
and  that  he  urged  sparing  no  expense  to  se- 
cure them.  Finally,  connect  the  strong  pre- 
sentation of  the  dangers  to  be  feared  from  for- 
eigners with  the  sentence:  "If  they  come 
they  are  entitled  to  all  the  rights  of  citizen- 
ship." Surely  there  is  here  no  semblance  of 
"closing  the  door  altogether,"  nor  shadow  of 
excuse  for  anyone  to  represent  that  he  "would 
have  wholly  excluded  naturalization.""^ 

'  Jefferson  mentioned  naturalization  in  one  other  place  in  the 
Notes  on   Virginia.     In   giving  a  summary  of  the  laws,   he  said:   "A 


ACT  OF  1802  103 

When  we  turn  from  the  Notes  on  Virginia 
to  the  message  of  1801,  it  seems  that  the  posi- 
tion of  Jefferson  in  the  latter  has  also  been 
misrepresented.  Hamilton  reads  in  the  mes- 
sage "the  proposal  to  abolish  all  restrictions 
on  naturalization,  arising  from  a  previous 
residence." 

Jefferson  certainly  did  not  define  himself  so 
explicitly.  He  asserted  the  wisdom  of  the 
Constitution  in  requiring  for  certain  offices  a 
residence  suMcient  to  develop  character  and 
design  and  then  questioned  whether  the  "gen- 
eral character  and  capabilities  of  a  citizen" 
might  not  "be  safely  communicated  to  every 
one  manifesting  a  bona  fide  purpose  of  em- 
barking his  life  and  fortunes  permanently 
with  us."  Whether  a  term  of  residence  should 
be  an  essential  part  of  the  mode  of  manifest- 
ing this  bona  Me  purpose,  and  attesting  its 
permanent  quality,  is  a  question  that  Jefferson 
left  entirely  open,  unless  it  can  be  maintained 
that  in  adding  "with  restrictions,  perhaps,  to 
guard  against  the  case  of  fraudulent  use  of 
the  flag,"  he  must  be  understood  to  imply 
that  he  would  have  no  restrictions  in  other 

foreigner  of  any  nation  not  in  open  war  with  us,  becomes  natur- 
alized by  removing  to  the  state  to  reside,  and  taking  an  oath  of 
fidelity;  and  thereupon  acquires  every  right  of  a  native  citizen: 
and  citizens  may  divest  themselves  of  that  character  by  declaring 
by  solemn  deed,  or  in  open  court,  that  they  mean  to  expatriate 
themselves,  and  no  longer  to  be  citizens  of  this  state." 


I04     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

cases.  It  is  possible  so  to  understand  him, 
but  it  is,  I  think,  unquestionable  that  Jefferson 
did  not  seek  to  express  himself  clearly  to  that 
effect.  The  natural  interpretation  of  his 
words  does  not  find  in  them  so  extreme  a 
thought.  But  if  it  be  held  that  Jefferson  did 
mean  to  recommend  the  naturalization  of  for- 
eigners promptly  upon  their  landing  in 
America,  I  think  that  at  least  as  good  a  case 
can  be  made  out,  from  the  evidence  of  the 
Notes  in  the  sentence,  "If  they  come  of  them- 
selves they  are  entitled  to  all  the  rights  of 
citizenship,"  that  in  1781  he  had  already 
reached  the  same  opinion. 

Others  follow^ed  Hamilton  in  alleging  that 
Jefferson  was  inconsistent  in  1801  with  the 
views  expressed  in  his  Notes  on  Virginia.  A 
series  of  three  articles  on  the  message,  signed 
"Recantator,"  appeared  while  the  act  of  1802 
was  before  Congress.  The  last  of  these  is 
a  diatribe  charging  Jefferson  with  dishonest 
change  of  opinion  and  with  seeking  the  suf- 
frage of  alien  fugitives.^  J.  C.  Hamilton  also, 
in  his  History  of  the  Republic  of  the  United 
States,^  tells  us  that  the  early  opinions  of 
Jefferson  would  have  wholly  excluded  natur- 
alization; and  again  that  Hamilton,  replying 
to  the  message,  quoted  Jefferson's  early  opin- 

8  W ashington   Federalist,    May    19,    :8o2.  *  VII,    148,    529. 


ACT  OF  1802  105 

ions   against   the   admission   of   foreigners   to 
citizenship  on  any  terms. 

In  connection  with  the  first  of  these  mis- 
representations occurs  also  a  strange  use  of 
material  to  save  Hamilton  from  responsibility 
with  his  party  for  the  Federalist  mistakes  of 
1798.  The  son  is  discussing  the  Naturaliza- 
tion Act  of  1798,  and  has  declared  that  "Ham- 
ilton's view  differed  from  his  party."  In 
proof  of  this  he  writes  the  unqualified  "He 
said  that,"  and  follows  it  with  details  of  Ham- 
ilton's opinions  quoted  from  the  reply  to  Jef- 
ferson's message  as  given  above.  Readers 
are  thus  compelled  to  suppose  that  these 
words  represent  Hamilton's  expressed  opin- 
ions or  advice  at  the  time  of  the  passage  of 
the  act  of  1798,  before  the  election  of  1800 
could  have  influenced  either  his  thought  or 
his  utterance  of  it.  Hamilton  had  said  in  the 
same  article:  "The  present  law  was  merely  a 
temporary  measure  adopted  under  peculiar 
circumstances,  and  perhaps  demands  re- 
vision," While  it  is  true  that  temporary  con- 
ditions led  to  the  passage  of  the  law  referred 
to,  there  is  no  evidence  that  any  of  its  sup- 
porters intended  it  to  be  "merely  a  temporary 
measure."  On  the  contrary,  most  of  them 
probably  regarded  it  as  a  compromise  meas- 
ure that  stopped  short  of  what  they  desired. 


io6     NATUR.\LIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

The  paragraph  of  Jefferson's  message 
under  consideration  was  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  House  on  the  State  of 
the  Union,  which  reported  a  resolution  "That 
the  laws  respecting  naturalization  ought  to  be 
revised  and  amended."  ^"  The  House  agreed 
to  the  resolution/^  and  a  bill  was  soon 
brought  in  by  a  special  committee  appointed 
for  the  purpose. ^^  The  most  complete  state- 
ment of  its  contents  and  purposes  as  originally 
introduced  has  been  found  in  the  Kentucky 
Palladium.  A  general  interest  in  the  measure 
is  apparent  on  the  frontier  that  was  lacking 
in  the  eastern  cities. 

The  Palladium  noted  that  a  bill  had  been 
reported  for  revising  and  amending  the  laws 
on  naturalization,  and  that  it  proposed  several 
objects.  The  first  of  these  was  to  repeal  the 
act  of  1798,  passed  when  the  United  States 
were  threatened  with  being  involved  in  Euro- 
pean war.  Besides  the  fourteen-years-resi- 
dence  requirement,  the  alien 

i«  December  14,   1801.  ^^  December  15,   1801. 

^2  January  26,  1802;  House  Journal,  Seventh  Congress,  First 
Session,  17,  18,  70.  The  record  upon  this  bill  in  both  Journals 
and  Annals  is  very  meager.  The  Kentucky  Palladium  for  January 
8  and  15,  1802,  adds  some  details.  Mitchell,  in  committee  of  the 
whole  on  December  14,  referred  to  his  having  presented  two  peti- 
tions from  aliens,  and  offered  the  following:  "Resolved,  That  the 
laws  respecting  naturalization  ought  to  be  revised."  To  this  an 
amendment  by  Giles  added  "or  amended."  One  member  sought  to 
secure  instructions  for  the  committee  that  they  should  prepare  the 
bill,  and  another  opposed  reference  to  a  committee  on  the  ground 
that  the  bill  to  be  proposed  would  affect  every  state  in  the  Union. 
The  reference  was  made  by  a  vote  of  29  to  42. 


ACT   OF   1802  107 

was  also  subjected  to  a  variety  of  forms  and  penalties  which 
have,  since  the  passing  of  that  act,  been  disregarded  both  by 
aliens  themselves  and  by  the  magistrates  of  places  in  which 
they  resided. 

The  second  object  was  to  recur  to  the  act  of 
1795  which  required  five  years'  residence,  and 
make  that  the  rule  governing  admission. 
There  was  a  proviso  against  admitting  ahen 
enemies,  and  against  receiving  the  mere  oath 
of  any  aHen  to  prove  the  time  of  his  own  resi- 
dence in  the  United  States,  compelHng  him  to 
estabhsh  that  point  by  other  testimony.  The 
third  object  was  to  cause  aHens  to  register 
their  names  in  the  office  of  a  clerk  of  some 
federal  or  state  court,  a  certificate  of  this  reg- 
istration to  be  produced  later  as  evidence  of 
the  time  when  the  alien  arrived  in  this  country. 
This  provision  was  to  apply  to  all  who  arrived 
after  June,  1798.  A  final  object  was  to  explain 
some  doubts  relative  to  proceedings  under  the 
naturalization  laws,  within  the  state  of  Penn- 
sylvania. 

There  is  no  report  of  debate  or  of  the  nature 
of  the  several  amendments  made  to  this  bill 
in  the  House.  The  Annals^^  mention  "some 
time  spent"  upon  it.^^  The  vote  by  which  it 
passed  was  59  to  2y}^     In  the  Senate  a  part 

1'  March  4,   1802. 

^*  House  Journal,    Seventh   Congress,    First   Session,    123,    127. 

*^  Ibid.,    129. 


io8     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

of  the  amendments  reported  by  a  special  com- 
mittee were  adopted,  and  the  bill  was  then 
recommitted.^^  Again  the  Senate  accepted  a 
part  of  the  amendments  that  were  made,  and 
further  amended  it.^'^  Newspaper  reports  in- 
dicate that  the  Senate  amendments  did  not 
alter  "the  principle  of  the  original  bill,"  and 
that  "they  are  principally  confined  to  the  re- 
instatement of  several  of  the  provisions  of  the 
act  of  1795."^^ 

The  Senate  also  struck  from  the  bill  a 
clause  that  limited  to  one  year  the  operation 
of  the  special  proviso  for  aliens  who  were  in 
the  United  States  before  1795;  required  of 
them   "due   proof  made   to   some   one   of  the 

^^  Annals   of    Congress,    Seventh    Congress,    First    Session,    198, 
200,  204;   March   12,   18,  25. 
l~'  Ibid.,  251 ;   April  i,  1802. 

^^Philadelphia  Advertiser,  April  13  and  14,  1802.  Various 
considerations  render  it  probable  that  the  original  bill  had  only 
four  sections,  and  in  most  respects  was  equivalent  to  the  first 
three  sections  of  the  law.  The  Senate  combined  sees,  i  and  2; 
perhaps  transferred  the  part  that  repealed  the  original  acts  to  a 
new  sec.  5;  and  probably  inserted  sec.  4,  relating  to  minor  children 
of  naturalized  persons,  to  children  of  citizens  born  abroad,  and  to 
persons  already  proscribed  by  any  state.  Some  of  the  considerations 
in  support  of  these  conclusions  may  be  mentioned.  The  House 
recommitted  the  fourth  section  of  the  bill  (House  Journal,  123); 
a  Senate  amendment  to  the  last  line  of  the  original  is  found  in 
the  final  sec.  3  (Annals  of  Congress,  Seventh  Congress,  First  Ses- 
sion, 252;  April  3);  the  Kentucky  Palladium's  summary  contains 
four  parts,  arranged  in  harmony  with  these  views;  sec.  4  of  the  act 
is  not  referred  to  in  the  Palladium's  summary  of  the  bill  as  intro- 
duced, and  its  provisions,  as  we  expect  the  Senate  amendments 
to  be,  are  taken  largely  from  the  act  of  1795  (Philadelphia  Adver- 
tiser, supra).  Finally,  the  House  amended  a  section  proposed  to 
be  substituted  by  the  Senate  for  sees.  :  and  2  of  the  original  bill 
(House  Jouriial,  Seventh  Congress,  First  Session,   187). 


ACT   OF   1802  109 

courts,"  in  place  of  "declaring  on  oath  or  af- 
firmation" that  they  had  fulfilled  the  other 
residence  requirements;  and  inserted  "imme- 
diately preceding  his  application"  to  modify 
the  state  residence  required  in  the  same  pro- 
viso. It  also  changed  the  word  "admitted" 
to  "naturalized"  in  the  last  clause  of  sec.  3. 
By  the  first  of  these  amendments  it  secured, 
for  those  who  had  been  in  the  United  States 
seven  years,  the  opportunity,  not  merely 
within  a  year,  as  the  House  had  provided,  but 
at  any  future  time,  to  become  naturalized 
without  a  previous  declaration  of  intention. 
The  next  amendment  made  this  proviso  con- 
sistent with  the  general  provision  as  to  proof 
of  residence.  The  third  amendment  required 
a  quality  of  residence  of  those  having  the  bene- 
fit of  this  proviso  that  was  not  definitely  stipu- 
lated for  as  to  others.  The  final  change  substi- 
tuted the  most  precise  technical  term  for  a 
very  loose  general  one. 

The  bill  passed  the  Senate  as  amended,  by 
a  vote  of  18  to  8,  and  was  further  amended  in 
the  House. ^^  It  became  a  law  on  April  14, 
1802,^^  and  remains  the  law  in  all  of  its  general 
features  after  the  lapse  of  one  hundred  years. 
Two    months    later    the    Kentucky    Palladiion^^ 

^'^  House  Journal,   Seventh  Congress,   First  Session,   177,   187. 
2*  Ibid.,    194.  *^  June   17,   1802. 


no     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

quoted  from  the  National  Intelligencer  the  news 
that  the  revision  had  taken  place,  and  the  follow- 
ing comment : 

The  justice  due  to  a  large  number  of  people  who  emi- 
grated under  the  faith  of  existing  laws,  and  the  policy  of 
opening  the  wilderness  and  acquiring  the  arts  and  manu- 
factures of  Europe  required  this  revision.  It  is  only  the 
revival  of  the  Washington  system. 

During  the  winter  of  1803  a  number  of  pe- 
titions, chiefly  from  aliens  in  Pennsylvania, 
w^ere  received  by  Congress  praying  for  a  modi- 
fication of  the  Naturalization  Act.  The  first 
of  these  asked  amendment  as  related  to  aliens 
who  came  to  the  United  States  to  reside  w^hile 
the  act  of  1798  w^as  in  force.  It  was  objected 
to  on  the  ground  that  it  was  extremely  dis- 
respectful by  reason  of  some  severe  com- 
ments on  the  Adams  administration,  and  that 
the  law  had  been  amended  in  the  interest  of 
the  petitioners  at  the  last  session  of  Congress. 
One  speaker  urged  care  lest  they  "uncitizen- 
ize"  themselves  by  going  too  far.  After  dis- 
cussion pro  and  con,  reference  was  lost  by  a 
vote  of  32  to  49.-^ 

The  following  day  another  petition  was 
read  containing  an  argument  for  easy  naturali- 
zation.    Irish  aliens  had  been  invited  by  Con- 

-^  House  Journal,  Seventh  Congress,  Second  Session,  324;  An- 
nals of  Congress,  Seventh  Congress,  Second  Session,  465;  February 
7,    1803. 


ACT  OF   1802  III 

gress.  Two  years'  residence  in  Pennsylvania 
and  some  other  states  was  to  give  citizenship. 
Encourage  aliens  and  you  will  prosper.  "Neg- 
lect us,  we  suffer,  but  you  are  not  served."  It 
concluded  with  a  prayer  that  Congress  would 
admit  to  citizenship  those  aliens  that  were  shut 
out  from  it  by  default  of  three  years'  previous 
declaration  of  intention,  and  restore  the  two- 
years'-residence  requirement  of  the  first  nat- 
uralization law.  Again  reference  was  refused 
by  the  more  emphatic  vote  of  23  to  61."^ 

Soon,  however,  other  petitions  of  a  similar 
nature  were  referred  to  a  special  commit- 
tee,^* but  not  without  question  and  explanation 
that  the  objectionable  expressions  of  the  for- 
mer ones  were  not  in  these.  The  committee 
worked  rapidly,  got  leave  to  report  by  bill, 
and  did  so  in  three  days,^^  as  follows :  Any 
alien  being  free  white,  resident  in  the  United 
States  between  June  14,  1802,  and  since,  may 
be  admitted  to  become  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  or  any  of  them,  without  compliance 
with  the  first  condition  of  the  Naturalization 
Act  [i.  e.,  without  making  declaration  of  in- 
tention three  years  before  admission]. 

There  was  vigorous  opposition  when  the  bill 

-3  Annals  of  Congress,  Seventh  Congress,  Second  Session,  474, 
480;   February  8,    1803. 

^*  House  Journal,  Seventh  Congress,  Second  Session,  339,  345; 
April   14  and  16. 

"April    17. 


112     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

was  put  upon  its  passage.  Goddard  (Conn.) 
was  surprised  that  this  bill  was  pressed 
— there  was  so  little  time  left;  none  were  less 
entitled  to  the  time  of  the  House  than  these 
persons.  The  language  of  their  petitions  was 
at  first  so  indecent  that  the  House  had  refused 
to  consider  them.  They  were  returned  within 
two  days  with  the  same  signatures  and  lan- 
guage, except  that  the  objectionable  passage 
had  been  omitted.  Someone  had  remodeled 
them.  Dana  (Conn.)  also  objected  to  giving 
more  attention  to  these  aliens  than  to  citizens. 
Smilie  (Pa.)  defended  them.  He  quoted  the 
objectionable  paragraph  and  asserted  its  truth. 
In  substance,  it  was  that  from  1798  to  1801 
aliens  attached  to  liberty  were  abused  in  the 
administrative  papers;  the  president  was  no- 
toriously hostile,  and  could  banish  them  at  pleas- 
ure ;  an  alien  resident  could  have  no  induce- 
ment to  declare  his  intention  to  become  a  citi- 
zen, as  he  was  thus  placing  himself  on  a  list 
of  proscriptions  [calling  the  attention  of  a  hos- 
tile administration  to  himself]. 

He  continued  by  inquiring  what  harm  there 
could  be  in  admitting  aliens  after  five  years 
of  residence,  even  if  they  had  not  made  a 
declaration  of  intention  at  a  time  when  four- 
teen years'  residence  was  required.  Duty  to 
the  aliens  and  to  their  own  selves  required 


ACT  OF   1802  113 

their  admission.  Fears  lest  foreigners  should 
destroy  or  injure  their  political  system  were 
ridiculous.  Labor  is  of  the  last  (i.  e.,  great- 
est) importance  in  the  middle  states.  The 
measure  saves  three  years  of  residence  to  a 
class  of  aliens,  who  without  it  must  reside  here 
eight  years  before  their  naturalization.  Davis 
(Ky.)  urged  the  turbulent  and  factious  tem- 
pers of  aliens,  and  verily  believed  that  in  less 
than  five  years  they  would  be  obliged  to  re- 
enact  fourteen  years'  residence.  Was  it  right 
or  constitutional  to  apply  four  rules  to  some 
aliens  and  three  to  others?  Some  of  the  oppo- 
sition feared  that  perjury  would  result  from 
the  measure.  Lieb  (Pa.)  stated  that  the  pe- 
titions showed  many  persons  to  be  affected. 
Was  there  any  magic  in  a  declaration  of  in- 
tention fitting  aliens  for  citizenship?  It  was 
the  existing  law  that  made  inequality;  it  re- 
quired five  years'  residence  for  some  and  eight 
years  for  others,  who  came  after  1798  and  be- 
fore 1802.  Only  four  at  most  of  the  required 
fourteen  years  had  passed  for  these,  and  nine 
were  given  before  it  became  useful  to  declare 
intention.  An  earlier  declaration  was  a  risk, 
and  exposed  the  alien  to  transportation.  Both 
the  spirit  and  the  letter  of  the  last  law  were  in 
favor  of  the  present  bill. 

Three  votes  were  taken  in  disposing  of  the 


114    NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

measure.  Postponement  was  refused  by  a 
vote  of  40  to  42.  Griswold  moved  to  recom- 
mit, as  it  was  too  late  to  amend  in  the  House. 
If  the  measure  carried,  he  wished  it  tO'  carry 
with  it  a  provision  for  a  declaration  of  inten- 
tion one  month  or  one  year  before  admission. 
The  purpose  of  a  declaration  was  to  let 
people  observe  the  character  and  behavior  of 
the  prospective  citizen.  He  wished  the  select 
committee,  also,  to  investigate  the  charge  of 
forgery  in  reconstructing  certain  of  the  peti- 
tions. Recommitment  failed,  38  to  42.  The 
bill  was  then  rejected  by  a  vote  of  37  to  42.^' 
A  petition  of  Baltimore  aliens  brought  up 
the  subject  in  the  House  early  in  the  following 
session,^''^  and  a  bill  was  soon  reported. ^^  It 
passed  the  House  by  a  vote  of  65  to  38,  and 
became  a  law  on  March  26,  1804.^^  Section  i 
was  the  same  as  the  bill  of  the  previous  year,^" 
except  that  the  words  "or  any  of  them"  were 
omitted  after  ''may  be  admitted  to  become 
a  citizen  of  the  United  States."  They  had 
been  in  all  the  previous  acts,  except  that  of 
1790,  and  their  omission  here  indicates  the  as- 

28  Annals  of  Congress,  Seventh  Congress,  Second  Session, 
569-74;   February  21,   1803. 

'"'House  Journal,  Eighth  Congress,  First  Session,  518;  January 
6,    1804. 

-^  Ibid.,    545 ;  January  20,    1804, 

"*  Ibid.,    655,    690. 

30  See  p.  HI. 


ACT  OF  1802  115 

cendancy  of  a  new  conception  of  the  relations 
between  state  and  federal  citizenship. 

Section  2  provided  that  when  any  aHen  who 
had  complied  with  the  conditions  in  sees,  i 
and  2  of  the  act  of  1802  (i.  e.,  had  made  a 
declaration  of  intention,  had  registered  the 
date  of  his  arrival,  and  had  received  a  certifi- 
cate thereof)  died  before  he  was  actually 
naturalized,  his  widow  and  children  should  be 
considered  to  be  citizens,  and  should  be  en- 
titled to  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  citizens 
upon  taking  the  oaths  prescribed  by  law.  The 
House  and  the  Senate  each  made  one  change 
in  the  bill  as  reported.  It  is  probable  that  one 
of  them  made  the  change  mentioned  in  section 
I,  and  that  the  other  added  sec.  2  to  the  bill. 
The  latter  section  introduced  a  new  principle 
into  the  legislation  on  the  subject. 

McMaster  refers  ^^  to  the  Federalist  oppo- 
sition in  1807  to  the  naturalization  laws,  as 
causing  trouble ;  and  to  their  cry  of  repeal 
those  laws^  give  up  to  England  her  subjects, 
and  do  not  wage  war  for  protection  of  British 
deserters.  It  was  this  opposition  that  led,  in 
1808,  to  an  effort  in  Congress  to  enact  that 

all  citizens  shall  be  considered  such  no  longer  than  while 
they  actually  reside  within  the  United   States ;    and  that, 

"1  History  of  the  United  States,  III,  25s,  256.  See  IV,  aSpflf., 
for  some  instructive  passages  in  regard  to  the  immigration  of  this 
period. 


ii6     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

also,  if  any  citizen  shall  expatriate  himself,  he  shall,  ipso 
facto,  be  deemed  an  alien,  and  ever  after  be  incapable  of 
becoming  a  citizen.^" 

This  bill  was  reported  ^^  by  a  committee  ap- 
pointed,^^ on  the  motion  of  Burwell  (Va.),  to 
inquire  into  the  expediency  of  amending  the 
act  of  1802.  It  was  twice  read,  and  reached 
reference  to  the  committee  of  the  whole  a 
month  before  the  close  of  the  session. 

*^  Annals  of  Congress,  Tenth  Congress,  First  Session,  1871; 
March   26,    1808. 

»'  March   26,    1808. 

'*  Early  in  the  following  session  (November  30,  1808)  Burwell 
renewed  his  motion  for  a  committee,  and  soon  (December  17)  re- 
ported a  bill  in  the  same  form  as  before.  He  mentioned  a  modi- 
fication of  it,  to  which  his  committee  had  not  agreed,  that  he  in- 
tended to  propose  in  committee  of  the  whole.  The  bill,  however, 
dropped  from  sight  with  its  reference  as  before.  House  Journal, 
Tenth  Congress,  Second  Session,  133,  247,  368,  395;  19  Annals  of 
Congress,  Tenth  Congress,   Second   Session,  864;    December   17,    1808. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  ACT  OF  1813 

Within  ten  days  after  the  declaration  of 
war  with  Great  Britain,  in  1812,  a  committee 
was  appointed  in  the  House  to  inquire  into  the 
expediency  of  admitting  to  citizenship  such 
British  ahens  (now  ahen  enemies,  and  in- 
capable under  existing  laws)  as  had  emi- 
grated to  the  United  States  while  they  were 
alien  friends.^  The  mover  of  the  committee 
urged  that  the  immediate  attention  of  Con- 
gress was  required,  as  the  courts  were  pro- 
hibited from  naturalizing  persons  whose  pro- 
bationary period  was  ended  and  of  whom 
state  laws  required  military  service.  The  gov- 
ernment was  pledged  to  these ;  they  were 
strongly  attached  to  the  United  States,  and 
there  could  be  no  danger  from  admitting 
them.^  The  committee  promptly  reported  a  bill 
authorizing  the  naturalization  of  such  British 
alien  enemies.  An  amendment  was  added 
limiting  to  the  next  six  months  the  time  in 
which  application  for  the  benefit  of  the  pro- 
posed law,  and  declaration  of  intention,  could 
be  made.    An  amendment  to  exclude  from  its 

^  House  Journal.   Twelfth   Congress,   First   Session,   401. 
*  Annals  of  Congress,  Twelfth  Congress,   First   Session,    1561. 
117 


ii8     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

privileges  all  aliens  of  five  years'  residence  in 
the  United  States  who  had  not  already  made 
legal  declaration  of  intention  to  become  citi- 
zens was  lost.  The  bill  passed  the  House, 
without  division,  the  third  day  after  its  intro- 
duction. It  went  through  the  Senate  in  three 
days,  without  amendment,  and  passed  by 
unanimous  consent.^  July  6,  1812,  it  was  sent 
to  President  Madison.^ 

Just  after  the  opening  of  the  following  ses- 
sion, in  November,  a  message  from  the  execu- 
tive informed  the  houses  that  this  bill  had 
been  "liable  to  abuse  by  aliens  having  no  real 
purpose  of  effecting  a  naturalization,"  and 
that,  as  it  came  to  him  too  late  to  be  returned 
for  their  reconsideration,  he  had  permitted  it 
to  fail  of  becoming  a  law.  He  recommended 
that  "provision  be  now  made  in  favor  of  aliens 
entitled  to  the  contemplated  benefit,  under 
such  regulations  as  will  prevent  advantage 
being  taken  of  it  for  improper  purposes."' 

Niles  Register,  in  noting  the  failure  of  this 
bill,  said : 

It  is  understood  that  some  amendment  to  the  bill  in 
one  or  other  house  in  the  course  of  its  progress  rendered  it 
objectionable  in  the  view  of  the  president.' 

3  op  cit.,  317. 

*  House  Journal,  Twelfth  Congress,  First  Session,  403,  414,  421. 

*  Ibid.,  Second  Session,   554. 

^  Niles  Register,    II,   304;   July   25,    1812. 


ACT  OF  1813  "9 

It  seems  to  have  had  but  one  amendment,  as 
given  above ;  and  that  one  brought  the  bill 
more  into  line  with  the  suggestion  of  the  mes- 
sage than  it  was  without  it.  In  the  course  of 
the  debate  on  a  subsequent  bill,  the  ground  of 
the  president's  opposition  was  explained  to  be 
that  the  bill  contained  no  authorization  for  the 
removal  of  alien  enemies  before  their  naturali- 
zation was  completed.'  Interest  in  this  ex- 
planation is  increased  when  we  remember  that 
the  president  who  wrote  this  veto  message 
wrote  also  the  Virginia  resolutions. 

The  committee  of  the  House  to  which  the 
message  was  referred  reported  a  new  bill  with- 
in two  weeks.*  It  authorized  the  admission  to 
citizenship,  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  the 
naturalization  acts,  of  all  persons  resident  in 
the  United  States  or  the  territories  thereof  on 
June  I,  1812,  notwithstanding  anything  grow- 
ing out  of  the  existing  state  of  war,  provided 
that  no  alien  enemy  was  to  be  admitted  unless 
he  declared  his  intention  and  made  the  appli- 
cation required  within  nine  months.  Nothing 
in  the  act  was  to  be  construed  to  prevent  the 
removal,  according  to  law.  of  any  alien  enemy 
before  his  naturalization  was  completed.® 
Besides  the  addition  of  this  last  proviso,  the 

''  Annals  of  Congress,   Thirteenth   Congress,    First   Session,   467. 
•  House  Journal,   Twelfth  Congress,   Second   Session,    554. 
^Annals   of   Congress,    Twelfth    Congress,    Second    Session,    153. 


I20     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

substantial  changes  from  the  former  bill  were 
two.  The  date  at  which  residence  must  have 
been  acquired  was  changed  from  June  i8  (the 
opening  of  the  war)  to  June  i  ;  the  time  within 
which  declaration  of  intention  could  be  made 
was  changed  from  six  months  to  nine  months. 
A  varied  experience  met  the  bill  in  the  House. 
The  committee  of  the  whole  reported  it  with- 
out amendment.  The  House  amended  it  by 
adding  as  sec.  2: 

That  every  naturalized  citizen  of  the  United  States  or 
the  territories  thereof,  shall  forfeit  such  citizenship  upon 
his  voluntarily  removing  from  and  remaining  out  of  the 
United  States  or  the  territories  thereof,  for  and  during  the 
term  of  two  years." 

This  is  probably  the  origin,  or  a  very  early 
prototype,  of  the  similar  two-year  term  in  va- 
rious later  treaties.  Apparently,  the  radical 
amendment  the  bill  had  now  undergone  de- 
stroyed the  interest  of  its  friends  in  it.  A 
month  passed  by  when,  on  motion  of  the 
father  of  the  measure,  Lacock  (Penn.),  it  was 
recommitted  to  a  committee  of  the  whole  for 
amendment.  The  recommendation  of  that 
body,  that  the  new  section  providing  for  expa- 
triation be  struck  out,  carried  in  the  House  by 
a  vote  of  71    to  43.^^     Lacock  made  an  effort 

1"  Shown  by  Annals  of  Congress,  Twelfth  Congress,  Second 
Session,  153,  in  connection  with  House  Journal,  Twelfth  Congress, 
Second  Session,   569  and  684. 

'1  House  Journal,    Twelfth   Congress,    Second   Session,   684. 


ACT  OF  1813  121 

now  to  amend  by  extending  the  naturalization 
of  aliens  to  all  those  "who  have  heretofore, 
or  may  within  nine  months  hereafter,  declare 
their  intention  agreeably  to  law  to  become 
citizens  of  the  United  States."  This  amend- 
ment failed  by  three  votes.  It  would  have  re- 
moved any  question  (such  as  arose  with  a  later 
bill)  as  to  a  new  declaration  of  intention  being 
required  from  those  who  had  taken  the  first 
steps  toward  citizenship.  But  much  more  im- 
portant would  have  been  the  permission  given 
to  naturalize  all  alien  enemies  arriving  in 
America  within  the  next  nine  months. 

A  reason  alleged  by  Bacon  (Mass.),  the  fol- 
lowing day,  for  opposing  the  bill,  that  it  was 
impolitic  to  encourage  the  emigration  of  alien 
enemies  during  war  ^^  would  seem  to  be  valid 
only  on  the  supposition  that  it  was  made  at 
an  earlier  date,  while  the  foregoing  amend- 
ment was  pending.  But  his  motion  to  recom- 
mit to  the  committee  of  the  whole  for  amend- 
ment, supported  by  Grundy,  who  wished  to 
amend  certain  details  of  the  bill,  and  carried 
by  a  large  majority,  leaves  little  possibility  of 
doubt  that  he  spoke  at  the  later  date. 

For  a  third  time  the  committee  of  the  whole 
approved  the  bill  in  its  original  form,  and  it 
passed  the  House  on  February  23  as  "an  act 

1"  Annals  of  Congress,  Twelfth  Congress,   Second  Session,   1076. 


122     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

supplementary  to  the  existing  naturalization 
acts."^^  A  day  later  the  Senate  special  com- 
mittee reported  it  with  amendments.  It  was 
read  the  third  time,  as  amended,  by  unanimous 
vote,  and  passed  on  March  3,  entirely  too  late 
for  further  consideration  in  the  House. ^^  Just 
as  the  bill  passed  the  House,  a  petition  was 
received  from  certain  naturalized  citizens,  for- 
merly British,  who,  referring  to  a  proclama- 
tion of  the  prince  regent,  declared  that  they 
were  threatened  by  the  English  as  traitors,  if 
they  aided  the  United  States.  They  asked 
that  the  wisdom  of  Congress  protect  them.^' 
Third  bill :  A  special  session  of  Congress 
was  held  during  the  summer  of  1813.  Lacock, 
who  had  championed  the  cause  of  the  enemy 
aliens  in  the  House,  had  been  transferred  to 
the  Senate.  On  the  last  day  of  May  he  pre- 
sented therein  a  memorial  of  certain  English 
aliens  praying  for  admission  to  citizenship, 
notwithstanding  the  omission  of  certain  forms 
of  application.  The  language  of  this  petition 
would  seem  to  embrace  the  removal  of  the 
enemy  disability,  and  also  admission  without 

13  House  Journal,  Twelfth  Congress,  Second  Session,  689,  702, 
703- 

'^*' Annals  of  Congress,  Twelfth  Congress,  Second  Session,  100, 
102,  109,  121;  House  Journal,  Twelfth  Congress,  Second  Session, 
736. 

1^  Annals  of  Congress,  Twelfth  Congress,  Second  Session,  98; 
February  23,    1813. 


ACT  OF  1813  123 

a  declaration  of  intention.  In  response  to  it, 
a  bill  was  reported  within  two  days,  amended 
in  committee  of  the  whole  in  manner  un- 
known and  passed  within  a  week  of  the  re- 
ceipt of  the  petition. ^^  It  authorized  the  ad- 
mission, according  to  law,  of  all  alien  enemies 
who  were  resident  in  the  United  States  at  the 
beginning  of  the  war;  but  limited  to  nine 
months  the  time  for  making  the  required 
declaration  of  intention.  Nothing  contained 
in  it  was  to  be  construed  to  prevent  "the  ap- 
prehension and  removal,  agreeably  to  law,  of 
any  alien  enemy,  at  any  time  previous  to  the 
actual  naturalization  of  such  alien. "^^ 

The  bill  met  with  no  opposition  in  the 
House  committee  of  the  whole,  but,  when  re- 
ported to  the  House,  Burwell  (Va.)  stated 
that  he  wished  to  offer  amendments,  one  of 
them  being  to  confine  the  privileges  of 
naturalized  citizens  to  actual  residence  with- 
in the  United  States.^^  Later  he  waived  his 
purpose  to  amend  this  bill,  declaring  that  he 
should  propose  a  radical  change  of  the  natu- 
ralization laws  at  the  next  session.  He  held 
it  to  be  the  duty    of    Congress  to  repeal  its 

'^^  Ibid.,  Thirteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  19-23;  May  31  to 
June    7. 

^'' House  Journal.  Thirteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  22;  or 
Annals   of   Congress,    Thirteenth    Congress,    First    Session,    147. 

^^  Annals  of  Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  147; 
June  g,   1813. 


124     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

naturalization  laws  in  toto,  or  to  dry  up  the 
sources  of  collision  with  foreign  powers  aris- 
ing out  of  them;  but  time  was  then  lacking 
for  mature  consideration  of  the  subject.  He 
must  oppose  the  present  bill,  unless  it  was 
amended,  as  it  would  give  "to  the  numerous 
class  of  foreign  merchants  who  have  been 
ordered  from  the  seaports,  the  advantage  of 
availing  themselves  of  all  the  benefits  of  citi- 
zenship, and  the  protection  and  privilege  they 
convey,  by  merely  declaring  an  intention  to  be- 
come citizens. "^^  This  objection  involves  the 
idea  that  protection  would  be  given  by  the 
United  States  even  to  alien  enemies  who  had 
taken  but  one  step  toward  citizenship.^^ 

Gaston  (N.  C.)  had  many  objections  to  the 
bill.  He  secured  a  change  in  its  wording  to 
make  clear  that  those  who  had  already  de- 
clared their  intention  should  be  exempt  from 
a  new  declaration.  A  motion  to  validate  any 
naturalization  of  alien  enemies  made  since  the 
war  began  was  lost  by  a  vote  of  57  to  73. 
Further  opposition  arose  to  the  bill  in  its  exist- 
ing form,  and,  with  an  amendment  pending  to 
confine  its  privileges  to  those  who  had  already 
declared   their   intention   to   become    citizens, 

W  (9/.  ci't.,  154;  June   II. 

'"  It  can  hardly  be  that  the  privilege  of  the  American  flag  in 
commerce  is  what  is  referred  to.  That  would  involve  an  idea 
about   as   unlikely    and   much   more   inadequate. 


ACT  OF  1813  125 

it  was  agreed  ncm.  con.  to  refer  it  to  the 
Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs. ^^  It  returned 
with  three  amendments,  of  which  the  House 
accepted  one,  limiting  the  privileges  of  the 
bill  to  aliens  who  had  already  declared  their 
intention,  or  of  whom  no  declaration  of  inten- 
tion was  required. ^^  King  (Mass.)  failed  in 
an  effort,  probably  in  the  interest  of  alien 
sailors,  to  strike  out  the  limitation  to  persons 
"resident  in  the  United  States  or  the  Terri- 
tories thereof.  "^^ 

Again  those  who  wished  to  open  the  way 
for  the  admission  of  all  resident  alien  enemies 
rallied  their  forces,  and,  by  a  very  close  vote,^* 
succeeded  in  recommitting  the  measure  to  a 
favorable  select  committee.  Kennedy  (N.  C.) 
supported  their  report  at  some  length.  He 
urged  that  the  situation  of  the  alien  enemy 
was  extremely  disagreeable,  shut  out  as  he 
was  from  all  mercantile  business  within  forty 
miles  of  tide  water,  and  harassed  by  the  adver- 
tisements of  United  States  marshals  ordering 
him  to  register.  The  recent  law  relative  to 
seamen   did  not   restrict   their  naturalization 

''^Annals  of  Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  154; 
June  II,   1813. 

**  In  the  debate  of  the  twelfth,  Kennedy  referred  to  a  clause 
limiting  the  privilege  of  naturalization  under  the  act  to  aliens  who 
had  declared  their  intention.  This  justifies  the  conclusion  given  as 
to   the   nature  of  the  amendment       (Annals   of  Congress,   p.   433  ). 

2'  House   Journal,    Thirteenth    Congress,    First    Session,    74,    88. 

**  Fifty-seven    to    fifty-three. 


126     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

until  peace  came.  Those  who  thought  that  it 
did  might  amend  this  measure  to  naturaHze 
only  after  five  years'  residence,  and  all  diffi- 
culty would  be  removed.  The  measure  would 
strengthen  the  country  for  war  and  relieve 
persons  who  had,  for  the  most  part,  been 
banished  by  oppression,  had  fled  to  the  only 
asylum  open  to  them,  and  were  now  threat- 
ened again.  In  his  section  they  were  general- 
ly Irish.  Some  persons  were  contending  for 
letting-  them  be  naturalized  by  state  govern- 
ments. In  that  case  the  United  States  could 
not  claim  them  as  citizens  and  screen  them 
from  punishment  for  treason.  Could  the  gov- 
ernment treat  as  alien  enemies,  and  deny  civil 
rights  to,  those  who  joined  its  armies?  Such 
a  course  would  sour  the  minds  of  those  well 
afifected.  He  had  it  on  good  authority  that 
the  president's  opposition  to  the  former  bill 
was  because  it  contained  no  provision  for  the 
removal  of  alien  enemies  previous  to  their 
naturalization.^^ 

The  House  amended  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee, evidently  by  reinserting  the  require- 
ment of  a  declaration  of  intention  before  the 
outbreak  of  the  war.^^  Roberts,  the  chairman 
of  the  special  committee,  then  sought  again 

^^  Annals  of  Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress,   First  Session,   465. 
**  This  is  shown  by  Roberts'  amendment   (House  Journal,  Thir- 
teenth Congress,  First  Session,  113). 


ACT  OF  1813  127 

to  remove  this  restriction  and  insert  in  place 
of  it,  "if  they  shall  have  resided  therein  [in 
the  United  States]  for  the  continued  term  of 
five  years  immediately  preceding  their  admis- 
sion as  citizens  in  manner  aforesaid."  Ken- 
nedy had  suggested  this  measure  to  those  who 
opposed  the  admission  of  any  whose  declara- 
tion had  not  been  made  before  June  18,  1812, 
as  a  compromise  that  would  be  acceptable. 
His  side  were  now  driven  to  urge  it  as  a  last 
resort  in  defense  of  their  contention.  The 
Roberts  amendment  failed,  as  did  also  an 
effort  to  admit  of  later  declaration  by  those 
who  "had  intermarried  with  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States."  The  bill  became  a  law  on 
July  30.  1813.-'  It  was  entitled:  "An  act  sup- 
plementary to  the  acts  heretofore  passed  on 
the  subject  of  an  uniform  rule  of  naturaliza- 
tion." It  provided  "that  persons  resident 
within  the  United  States,  or  the  Territories 
thereof,"  at  the  outbreak  of  the  war,  "who  had 
before  that  day  made  a  declaration  according 
to  law"  of  intent  to  become  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  or  who,  by  the  existing  laws, 
were  entitled  to  become  citizens  without 
making  a  declaration,  might  be  admitted  to 
become  citizens  thereof,  notwithstanding  they 
should  be  alien  enemies,  at  the  time  and  in  the 

^'^  House  Journal,   Thirteenth   Congress,   First   Session,    113,    114, 
'30,   131,   135,   141.     A  Senate  amendment  was  disagreed  to. 


128     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

manner  prescribed  by  the  laws  heretofore 
passed  on  that  subject;  provided  that  the  act 
was  not  to  be  construed  to  interfere  with  the 
removal,  etc.,  of  any  alien  enemy  before  his 
actual  naturalization.^^ 

In  summing  up  the  foregoing  history,  we 
note  that  the  first  bill  simply  removed  the 
enemy  disability  from  those  in  the  United 
States  at  the  beginning  of  the  war  (June  i8, 
1812)  ;  but  it  was  amended  to  limit  declara- 
tions to  six  months  after  its  passage.  This  bill 
received  a  pocket  veto.  The  second  bill  re- 
moved the  alien-enemy  disability  from  all  who 
were  in  the  United  States  on  June  i,  1812,  but 
required  a  declaration  of  intention  within  nine 
months.  It  was  amended  by  the  senate  too 
late  in  the  session  for  further  action  in  the 
House.  The  third  bill  originated  in  the  Sen- 
ate. It  removed  the  alien-enemy  disability 
from  those  who  were  in  the  United  States  on 
June  18,  1812,  but  any  required  declaration  of 
intention  was  to  be  made  within  nine  months. 
The  House,  after  a  lively  struggle  within  it- 
self, succeeded  in  limiting  the  application  of 
the  measure  to  those  whose  declaration  of  in- 
tention was  made  before  the  outbreak  of  the 
war,  or  who  needed  to  make  no  declaration. 

"^  Statutes  at  Large,   III,   53. 


CHArXER  VIII 

AN   ACT   CONCERNING   EVIDENCE 

During  the  discussion  of  the  bill  for  the 
naturalization  of  alien  enemies,  Dana  (Conn.) 
made  repeated  attempts  in  the  Senate  to  se- 
cure consideration  of  a  bill  concerning  evi- 
dence in  cases  of  naturalization.  He  intro- 
duced it  on  July  19,  181 3,  and,  failing  to  gain 
a  hearing  for  it  so  late  in  the  session,  secured 
its  postponement  to  the  first  week  in  Decem- 
ber.^ In  the  following  session,  however,  he 
introduced  a  new  bill.^  Three  weeks  later  he 
secured  its  reference  to  a  committee  of  which 
he  was  chairman,  and  reported  it  unchanged, 
but  could  get  for  it  no  other  consideration 
than  a  second  postponement  over  the  recess.^ 
Early  in  the  first  session  of  the  new  Congress 
in  181 5  he  renewed  his  efforts,  with  better 
success.  After  amendment  in  both  House 
and  Senate,  his  bill  became  a  law  March  22, 
1816.*  The  title  was:  "An  act  relative  to  evi- 
dence in  cases  of  naturalization." 

*  Annals  of  Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  59, 
63,   79;  July   19,   21,  30,   1813. 

*  December  23. 

'  Annals  of  Congress,  Thirteenth  Congress,  Second  Session, 
563,   571,   759,   775 ;    December  23,    1813;  January   10,   April    18,    1814. 

*  Senate  Journal,  Fourteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  50,  55, 
68,  73,  77,  83;  House  Journal,  Fourteenth  Congress,  First  Session, 
164.   30S1   312,   336,   411,   418,   496. 

129 


ISO     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

It  provided  that  the  certificate  of  report 
and  registry  required  by  the  act  of  1802,  and 
also  a  certificate  of  the  declaration  of  inten- 
tion, should  be  exhibited  by  every  alien  who 
should  have  arrived  in  the  United  States  after 
June  18,  1812,  and  that  each  should  be  recited 
at  full  length  in  the  record  of  the  court  ad- 
mitting such  alien  to  citizenship.  Otherwise 
he  should  not  be  deemed  to  have  complied 
with  the  conditions  required  for  becoming  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States.  Any  pretended 
admission  of  such  citizen,  after  the  promulga- 
tion of  the  act,  without  such  recital  of  each 
certificate  at  full  length,  should  be  of  no 
validity.  Any  person  admitted  without  a  cer- 
tificate must  prove  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
court  that  he  was  a  resident  in  the  United 
States  before  April  14,  1802,  and  had  resided 
therein  continuously  since.  The  proof  of  his 
residence  for  the  five  years  immediately  pre- 
ceding his  admission  must  be  by  the  oath  or 
affirmation  of  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
who  must  be  named  in  the  record  as  witness- 
es. The  fact  of  continuous  residence  must  be 
stated  in  the  record,  also  all  places  of  residence 
for  five  years.  A  record  of  naturalization 
without  these  particulars  should  not  entitle  a 
person  to  be  considered  a  citizen.^ 

"  Statutes  at  Large,   III,  258. 


ACT  CONCERNING  EVIDENCE  131 

In  January,  1816,  Wilson  (N.  J.)  submitted 
for  the  consideration  of  the  Senate  a  resolu- 
tion for  a  committee  to  inquire  into  the  ex- 
pediency of  revising  and  digesting  the  several 
acts  of  Congress  on  the  subject  of  naturaliza- 
tion, or  of  compiling  and  publishing  the  said 
acts,  and  distributing  the  same  to  the  officers 
of  courts  authorized  to  issue  certificates  of 
naturalization.  The  outcome  of  this  was  a 
resolution  ^  that  the  secretary  of  state  have 
printed  four  thousand  copies  of  the  laws  then 
in  force  on  the  subject  of  naturalization,  and 
send  two  copies  of  each  to  the  clerk  of  each 
federal  or  state  court  authorized  to  naturalize, 
to  each  collector  of  customs,  and  to  each  mar- 
shal of  a  United  States  judicial  district.  Re- 
maining copies  should  go  to  the  executive  de- 
partment and  the  Library  of  Congress.' 

During  a  debate  in  the  House  in  committee 
of  the  whole,  in  1816,  on  a  bill  to  incorporate 
subscribers  to  the  national  bank,  Randolph 
(Va.)  moved  to  add  the  word  "native"  in  the 
clause  that  limited  the  choice  of  directors  to 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  thus  making  it 
read  "native  citizens."  This  motion  was 
agreed  to  (ayes,  68)  without  debate.     When 

*  Approved   April    i6,    1816. 

'  Senate  Journal,  Fourteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  77,  79, 
371,  422,  478;  House  Journal,  Fourteenth  Congress,  First  Session, 
636;  Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress,   First  Session,   :9i8. 


132     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

the  clause  providing  for  the  appointment  of 
directors  for  branch  banks  was  reached,  a 
similar  motion  was  made  to  insert  "native" 
in  a  similar  provision.  Calhoun  then  objected 
to  the  amendment.  He  said  that  it  was  the 
first  attempt  that  had  been  made  to  discrimi- 
nate between  native  and  naturalized  citizens. 
The  constitution  recognized  no  such  distinc- 
tion, except  in  eligibility  to  the  highest  office, 
and  he  could  see  no  reason  for  introducing  at 
that  time  so  odious  and  unprecedented  a  dis- 
tinction. Randolph  replied  to  Calhoun  at 
considerable  length,  and,  in  the  words  of  Niles 
Register,  "he  inveighed  with  much  acrimony 
against  the  whole  class  of  naturalized  citi- 
zens." He  declared  that  the  United  States 
owed  to  its  naturalization  laws  the  spirit  of 
faction  by  which  it  had  been  torn  for  twenty 
years,  and  along  with  it  the  war  just  over. 
Protecting  foreign  seamen  had  also  grown  out 
of  it.  How  long  the  country  must  endure  this 
foreign  yoke  in  its  most  odious  and  disgusting 
form  he  could  not  tell !  He  would  much  rather 
be  ruled  by  the  British  Parliament  than  by 
British  subjects  in  America.  They  must  teach 
the  people  of  Europe  that  all  they  must  hope 
to  receive  in  America  was  protection.  They 
must  have  no  share  in  the  government. 
Wright  replied  warmly  to  Randolph,  and  this 


ACT  CONCERNING  EVIDENCE  133 

motion  was  lost  without  division.  When  the 
bill  came  before  the  House,  Calhoun  secured 
the  rejection  of  the  first  amendment  also,  by 
a  vote  of  44  to  67,  although  Randolph  again 
advocated  it  in  a  short  speech.^ 

^Annals  of  Congress,  Fourteenth  Congress,  First  Session,   1152, 
1153,    1200;  Niles  Register,   X,   31,  47;   March  6  and   ii,    1816. 


CHAPTER  IX 

EXPATRIATION 

In  giving  a  summary  of  the  laws  of  Virginia 
in  1781,  Jefferson  wrote^  that  "citizens  may- 
divest  themselves  of  that  character  by  declar- 
ing, by  solemn  deed,  or  in  open  court,  that 
they  mean  to  expatriate  themselves,  and  no 
longer  to  be  citizens  of  this  state."  He  added 
to  this  summary  of  the  laws  the  statement  that 
the  first  assembly  after  Virginia  became  a  state 
appointed  three  men  to  revise  the  code. 
Among  the  most  remarkable  alterations  they 
proposed  was  "to  define  with  precision  the 
rules  whereby  aliens  should  become  citizens, 
and  citizens  make  themselves  aliens."^ 

In  the  summer  of  1817,^  a  few  months  be- 
fore the  exhaustive  debate  on  the  subject  of 
expatriation  occurred  in  Congress,  Jefferson 
wrote  from  Monticello  to  Dr.  John  Manners: 

My  opinion  on  the  right  of  expatriation  has  been  so 
long  ago  as  the  year  1776,  consigned  to  record  in  the  act  of 
the  Virginia  code,  drawn  by  myself,  recognizing  the  right 
expressly,  and  prescribing  the  mode  of  exercising  it.  The 
evidence  of  this  natural  right  like  that  of  the  right  to  life, 
liberty,  and  the  use  of  our  faculties,  the  pursuit  of  happi- 
ness, is  not  left  to  the  feeble  and  sophistical  investigations 

1  Jeflferson,    Writings,   III,   240;   in   his  Notes  on   Virginia. 
-  Ibid.,   242,   243.  ^  June   12. 

134 


EXPATRIATION  13S 

of  the  reason,  but  is  impressed  on  the  sense  of  every  man. 
We  do  not  claim  these  under  the  charters  of  Kings  or 
legislators,  but  under  the  King  of  Kings.  If  he  has  made 
it  a  law  in  the  nature  of  man  to  pursue  his  own  happiness, 
he  has  left  him  free  in  the  choice  of  place  as  well  as  mode ; 
and  we  may  safely  call  upon  the  whole  body  of  English 
jurists  to  produce  the  map  on  which  Nature  has  traced,  for 
each  individual,  the  geographical  line  which  she  forbids 
him  to  cross  in  pursuit  of  happiness.  It  certainly  does  not 
exist  in  his  mind.  Where,  then,  is  it?  I  believe,  too,  I 
might  safely  afifirm,  that  there  is  not  another  nation,  civil- 
ized or  savage,  which  has  ever  denied  this  natural  right. 
I  doubt  if  there  is  another  which  refuses  it  exercise.* 

Jefferson  had,  while  president,  occasion  to 
make  practical  application  of  his  views  upon 
this  subject  in  a  case  in  which  he  maintained 
the  binding  force  of  the  doctrine  against  a 
man  who  wished  to  free  himself  from  the 
consequences  of  his  own  act  in  having  former- 
ly availed  himself  of  it.  Jefferson  wrote  to  his 
secretary  of  the  treasury  (Gallatin)  :° 

The  Attorney-General  being  absent,  we  must  decide  for 
ourselves  the  question  raised  by  Colonel  Newton's  letter, 
whether  Mr.  Cooper  can  own  a  registered  vessel?  or,  in 
other  words,  whether  he  is  a  citizen  of  the  United  States. 

I  hold  the  right  of  expatriation  to  be  inherent  in  every 
man  by  the  laws  of  nature,  and  incapable  of  being  right- 
fully taken  from  him  even  by  the  united  will  of  every  other 
person  in  the  nation.  If  the  laws  have  provided  no  par- 
ticular mode  by  which  the  right  of  expatriation  may  be 
exercised,  the  individual  may  do  it  by  any  effectual  and 

■*  Jefferson,   Writings,  X,  87.  ^  June   26,    1806. 


136     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

unequivocal  act  or  declaration.  The  laws  of  Virginia  have 
provided  a  mode;  Mr.  Cooper  is  said  to  have  exercised  his 
right  solemnly  and  exactly  according  to  that  mode,  and  to 
have  departed  from  the  Commonwealth ;  whereupon  the 
law  declares  that  "  he  shall  thenceforth  be  deemed  no 
citizen."  Returning  afterwards  he  returns  an  alien,  and 
must  proceed  to  make  himself  a  citizen  if  he  desires  it,  as 
every  other  alien  does.  At  present  he  can  hold  no  lands, 
receive  nor  transmit  any  inheritance,  nor  enjoy  any  other 
right  peculiar  to  a  citizen. 

The  general  government  has  nothing  to  do  with  this 
question.  Congress  may  by  the  Constitution  "  establish  an 
uniform  rule  of  naturalization,"  that  is,  by  what  rule  an 
alien  may  become  a  citizen.  But  they  cannot  take  from  a 
citizen  his  natural  right  of  divesting  himself  of  the  char- 
acter of  a  citizen  by  expatriation.' 

From  many  points  of  view  this  is  a  most 
interesting  letter.  It  unhesitatingly  accepted 
the  view  that  a  state  was  competent  to  legis- 
late in  the  matter  of  expatriation,  involving, 
as  Jefferson  held  that  it  must,  the  loss  of  fed- 
eral citizenship.  The  Virginia  law  being  in 
force  and  applying  to  this  person,  the  appeal 
to  it  was,  from  Jefferson's  point  of  view,  ab- 
solutely necessary,  and  apparently  none  the 
less  acceptable.  Perhaps  he  did  not  decide  the 
question  as  to  whether  Congress  could  also  in- 
dicate a  valid  mode  of  expatriation.  At  any 
rate,  his  language  seems  to  necessitate  the 
view  that  it  could  not  establish  an  exclusive 
mode,  although  he  took  the  position  that  the 

*  Jefferson,    Writings,   VIII,   454. 


EXPATRIATION  137 

legal  mode  or  modes,  when  there  were  such, 
were  exclusive  of  all  others.  "The  general 
government  has  nothing  to  do  with  this  ques- 
tion/' is  indefinite  as  to  whether  it  applies  to 
the  particular  case  Jefferson  had  in  hand,  or 
to  the  general  question  of  expatriation.  His 
last  sentence  might  seem  to  have  been  framed 
to  avoid  expressing  a  decision  upon  this  point. 
The  citizen  character  lost  by  expatriation  was 
totally  lost,  and  the  person  became  an  alien. 
That  character  was  not  resumable  at  will,  nor 
by  consent  of  the  government,  but  only 
through  the  full  process  of  naturalization.  He 
had  no  question,  such  as  Madison  once  ex- 
pressed," as  to  the  right  of  an  expatriated 
American  to  become  naturalized  under  the 
laws  that  applied  to  foreigners. 

In  the  summer  of  1797  considerable  discus- 
sion on  the  subject  of  expatriation  occurred 
in  the  House  committee  of  the  whole  during 
the  consideration  of  a  bill  to  prevent  citizens 
of  the  United  States  from  entering  foreign 
service.  We  are  informed  merely  th.at  Rut- 
ledge  (S.  C),  W.  Smith  (S.  C.),  Dayton 
(N.  J.),  Brooks  (N.  Y.),  Otis  (Mass.).  and 
Kittera  (Pa.)  spoke  in  favor  of  marking  out 
a   way   for   expatriation.      On   the   other    hand. 

7  See  p.  54.  An  opinion  of  Hamilton  on  the  subject  of  expatriation 
has  been  quoted,  in   another  connection,  on  page   3. 


138     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

Coit  (Conn.)  was  probably  successful  in  his 
motion  to  strike  out  a  section  declaring  that 
for  the  due  execution  of  a  portion  of  the  act 
it  was  expedient  to  define  and  ascertain  the 
mode  in  which  a  citizen  might  dissolve  the 
ties  of  citizenship.® 

Great  interest  and  much  feeling  on  the  sub- 
ject of  expatriation  were  aroused  by  the  de- 
cision ^  in  the  case  of  Isaac  Williams,  who  was 
tried  ^°  in  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  District  of 
Connecticut  for  accepting  a  French  naval 
commission,  contrary  to  the  law  laid  down  in 
Art.  XXI  of  the  Jay  Treaty,  that  subjects  or 
citizens  of  the  one  country  should  not  accept 
commissions  from  a  foreign  state  at  war  with 
the  other.  Williams  claimed  that  he  was  ap- 
pointed to  a  place  in  the  French  navy  in  1792, 
and  was  naturalized  in  France  the  same  au- 
tumn. He  had  only  visited  in  the  United 
States,  less  than  six  months,  in  1796.  The 
court  held  that  "the  common  law  of  this 
country  remains  the  same  as  it  was  before  the 
revolution,"  that  all  the  members  of  a  civil 
community  were  bound  to  each  other  by  a 
compact,  and  that  one  of  the  parties  to  the 
compact  could  not  dissolve  it  by  his  own  act. 

^Annals  of  Congress,  Fifth  Congress,  First  Session,  348; 
June  20  and  21,   1797. 

^  Rendered  by  Chief  Justice  Ellsworth,  of  the  United  States 
Supreme    Court. 

i">  1799. 


EXPATRIATION  139 

There  had  been  no  consent  or  default  on  the 
part  of  the  community.  Nor  did  he  admit  the 
impHed  consent  that  had  been  argued  from  its 
poHcy,  condition,  and  acts.  Their  country  had 
no  inhabitants  to  spare.  They  naturahzed, 
but  did  not  inquire  as  to  the  relation  still  sus- 
tained to  the  other  country.  "But  this  im- 
plies no  consent  of  the  government  that  our 
own  citizens  should  expatriate  themselves." 
The  fault  and  folly  of  embarrassing  himself 
are  his  ov^n.^^ 

Various  articles  upon  the  subject  appeared. 
One  in  the  South  Carolina  Ga/:ctte/^  signed 
"South  Carolina  Planter,"  was  written  by 
Charles  Pinckney,  and  was  called  forth  by 
another  case,  that  of  Mackay  and  Nicks  vs. 
the  Polacre  Ship  "Adams,"  condemned  by  the 
British.  The  claimant  was  held  to  be  a  British 
subject  because  he  was  not  admitted  a  citizen 
of  the  United  States  until  March,  1796,^^  and 
hence  could  not  be  considered,  with  respect  to 
England,  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  to 
permit  of  his  trading  with  the  British  enemy. 
On  the  right  to  change  nationality  Pinckney 
quoted  Cicero  as  saying  that  "the  way  is  open 
from  every  state   to  ours  and  from   ours   to 

^^  Wharton's  State  Trials,  652;  quoted  in  part  in  Snow's  Cases 
on  International  Law,  215. 

''October  10,   1799. 

•*  He  liad  settled  in  the  United  States  in  1792;  the  war  began 
in   February,   1793. 


I40     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

every  state."  He  cited  Grotius,  and  quoted 
Vattel  as  saying  that  a  man  may  leave  his 
country  "except  when  he  cannot  abandon  it 
without  doing  it  a  remarkable  prejudice."  In 
case  of  naval  war  or  distant  expeditions  no 
danger  was  threatened  at  home,  and  England 
had  been  at  war  more  than  half  of  the  last 
century.  The  law  of  England  and  of  Russia 
infringed  upon  the  right  of  naturalization.  The 
United  States  must  protect  the  commerce  of 
its  new  subjects,  or  their  grant  of  citizenship 
was  a  public  deception. 

The  Williams  decision  was  printed  in  the 
South  Carolina  Gazette  for  November  28, 
1799.  A  week  later  a  reply,  entitled  "On  Ex- 
patriation," signed  "A  Federalist,"  appeared  in 
the  same  paper.  This  writer  urged  that  the 
common  law,  on  which  the  decision  was  based, 
had  been  greatly  modified  by  the  Revolution. 
He  admitted  that  the  government  was  based 
on  a  compact,  and  that  one  could  not  dissolve 
it.  But  the  only  compact  with  American  citi- 
zens was  the  Constitution.  It  contained  no 
express  principle  against  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States  joining  another  state.  Posterity 
were  not  bound  in  their  personal  liberty  by  the 
Constitution  when  they  left  the  country.  An 
article  in  the  same  paper  a  year  later  ^^  blamed 

"  October    i6,    1800. 


EXPATRIATION  141 

the    Federalists   for  supporting  the   Wilhams 
decision. 

A  series  of  articles  in  the  Aurora,  *'''  signed 
"T.  C.  of  Northumberland,"  discussed  the  sub- 
ject of  expatriation.  New  light  had  come  to 
English  law  on  this  subject  from  the  revolu- 
tionary period.  In  earlier  European  history 
the  people  gradually  came  to  be  considered 
the  subjects  or  property  of  their  rulers,  and 
from  this  fact  allegiance  was  considered  to  be 
perpetual.  Yet  writers  on  general  law  had 
always  claimed  exceptions.  These  had  grad- 
ually been  extended.  This  progress  of  opinion 
caused  a  presumption  that  the  right  of  expa- 
triation was  to  be  more  universally  ac- 
knowledged. The  latest  writers  were  fifty 
years  old  and  from  despotic  countries.  As 
general  arguments  in  favor  of  expatriation  he 
noted  exceptions  allowed  by  the  writers,  as 
follows:  (i)  the  case  of  a  government  plainly 
tyrannical;  (2)  religious  duties,  etc.,  being 
prohibited;  (3)  extreme  economic  reasons, 
such  as  the  usual  means  of  subsis^^ence  failing; 
(4)  failure  of  duty  by  the  state  (also  to  the 
state);  (5)  the  fundamental  laws  being  vio- 
lated. He  suggested  also  to  be  added  to  these : 
(i)  desire  of  bettering  fortune;  (2)  demands 
of  health,  relations,  etc.     Thus  he  found  that 

^*  January  22,  24,  25,   1800. 


142     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

exceptions  applied  to  nearly  every  case  and 
destroyed  the  law.  Moreover,  the  extreme  of 
the  law  would  show  that  no  allegiance  was 
due  to  any  of  the  existing  governments.  Only 
the  first  government  could  be  lawful.  Again, 
the  law  directly  opposed  every  revolution.  It 
was  unnecessary  to  any  good  government. 
And  again,  the  being  able  and  willing  was  im- 
plied in  the  making  of  all  valid  contracts. 
These  illustrations  indicate  the  trend  of  the 
thought  of  the  time. 

The  failure  of  Burwell's  attempt  in  1808  to 
enact  "that  all  citizens  shall  be  considered 
such  no  longer  than  while  they  actually  reside 
within  the  United  States,  and  also  that  if  any 
citizen  shall  expatriate  himself,  he  shall  ipso 
facto,  be  deemed  an  alien,  and,  ever  after,  be 
incapable  of  becoming  a  citizen,"  has  been 
mentioned.^^ 

An  expatriation  bill  before  Congress  in  1817 
led  to  an  exhaustive  debate  upon  the  subject. 
The  bill  "by  which  the  right  of  citizenship  may 
be  relinquished"^''^  was  reported  ^^  by  a  com- 
mittee^^ appointed^*'  to  inquire  into  the  ex- 

^'  See   p.  116. 

"  Probably  the  language  of  its  title. 

18  December  22,    1817. 

'*  Robertson    (La.),    Mason    (Mass.),    Poindexter    (Miss.),    Ross 
(Pa.),   and   Floyd    (Va.). 
20  December    15,    181 7. 


EXPATRIATION  I43 

pediency  of  providing  by  law  for  the  exercise 
of  the  right  of  expatriation.^^ 

In  making  the  motion  for  the  committee, 
Robertson  said  that  he  had  offered  a  similar 
resolution  some  years  before,  during  the  war. 
The  war  question  had  made  a  decision  neces- 
sary. England  had  treated  many  prisoners  as 
traitors,  and  the  United  States  could  not  con- 
sistently retaliate,  for  she  had  not  recognized 
in  her  own  citizens  the  right  that  she  demand- 
ed that  Great  Britain  should  concede  to  hers. 
In  the  Williams  case  a  man  had  been  fined  and 
imprisoned  by  the  United  States  courts,  on 
the  ground  that  he  could  not  divest  himself  of 
United  States  citizenship.  It  was  proper  for 
the  legislature  to  decide  so  important  a  ques- 
tion. Under  a  treaty  with  Spain,^^  a  citizen 
of  the  United  States  holding  a  commission 
from  any  government  at  war  with  Spain  while 
we  are  at  peace  with  her,  is  considered  as  a 
pirate.  They  were  not  neutral  as  between 
Spain  and  her  colonies  so  long  as  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States  in  fighting  for  the.  colonies 
was  a  pirate,  and  in  fighting  against  them  was 
not.  He  wished  to  see  American  citizens  at 
perfect  liberty  to  become  citizens  elsewhere  on 

2'  House  Journal,   Fifteenth   Congress,    First  Session,    50,   73. 

**  Art.  XIV  of  the  treaty  of  1795  is  referred  to.  No  citizen 
of  either  nation  is  to  take  commission  or  letter  of  mariiiie  from  the 
enemy  of  the  other. 


144     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

any  terms  the  other  nation  might  prescribe. 
He  favored  the  principle  involved,  and  the 
existing  circumstances  required  it.  His  reso- 
lution w^as  adopted  without  opposition. ^^ 

The  bill  reported  contained  two  sections. 
The  first  section  provided 

That  whensoever  any  citizen  of  the  United  States  shall,  by 
a  declaration  in  writing,  made  and  executed  in  the  district 
court  of  the  United  States,  within  the  state  where  he 
resides,  in  open  court  to  be  by  said  court  entered  of  record, 
declare  that  he  relinquishes  the  character  of  a  citizen,  and 
shall  depart  out  of  the  United  States,  such  person  shall, 
from  the  time  of  his  departure,  be  consicjered  as  having 
exercised  his  right  of  expatriation,  and  shall  thenceforth 
be  considered  no  citizen.'^ 

The  second  section  enacted 
that  such  person  shall  be  held  as  an  alien  forever  after,  and 
shall  not   resume  the  rights  of  citizenship  without  going 
through  the  same  process  of  naturalization  as  other  citi- 
zens.'' 

When  the  bill  first  came  up  in  committee 
of  the  whole,^^  Lowndes  (S.  C.)  remarked  that 
it  dealt  with  "a  subject  of  too  much  import- 
ance to  be  acted  on  by  so  thin  a  house,"  and 
it  was  postponed.  Robertson  (Ky)  opened 
the  long  debate. ^^  The  same  proposition  years 
ago  had  met  with  opposition  both  expected 

2^  Annals   of   Congress,    Fifteenth    Congress,    First    Session,    448. 
^*  House  Journal,    Fifteenth  Congress,   First  Session,   284. 
^^  Annals   of   Congress,    Fifteenth   Congress,    First    Session,    495. 
The   quotation   is  taken    from  a   summary   of  the   bill. 

"'  December  24,    18 17.  -'  December  26,   1817. 


EXPATRIATION  I45 

and  unexpected.  It  had  been  considered,  as 
most  principles  not  borrowed  from  the  com- 
mon law  (to  which  he  alluded  in  a  very  sar- 
castic way),  as  fraught  with  great  mischief. 
It  interfered  with  negotiations,  and  en- 
couraged desertion,  piracy,  and  every  sin  in 
the  Decalogue.  But  he  was  now  redeeming 
his  pledge  to  bring  it  up  again.  It  was  not 
borrowed  from  England,  and  it  might  prove 
beneficial  to  the  patriots  of  South  America, 
and  odious  to  the  friends  of  Ferdinand.  It 
might  rescue  citizens  from  the  crime  of  piracy 
attributed  to  them  by  treaty.  Yet  he  should 
press  the  principle. 

He  considered  expatriation  to  be  an  ac- 
knowledged natural  right,  and  demanded  that 
opponents  show  proof  of  indelible  allegiance. 
Man  had  natural  rights,  governments  had 
none.  The  friends  of  liberty  were  not  inno- 
vators. The  right  of  the  government  to  per- 
petual allegiance  did  not  exist  here — where 
was  it  in  the  Constitution?  His  principle, 
liberty,  was  in  the  Constitution.  It  was  in- 
alienable, and  was  a  necessary  consequence  of 
naturalization.  He  denounced  the  absurdity 
of  their  right  to  naturalize  and  the  right  of 
another  government  to  the  allegiance  of  the 
person  naturalized.  He  had  seen  some  in- 
genious quibbling   in    favor  of  that  nonsense. 


146     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

Perhaps  the  right  of  expatriation  had  never 
been  denied  in  ancient  or  modern  days  except 
by  EngHsh,  Chinese,  and,  it  might  be,  Hottentot 
governments.  Thor  and  Woden  were  be- 
heved  to  be  the  authors  of  the  principle  of  in- 
dehble  allegiance — the  idea  had  originated  in 
the  dark  ages.  Expatriation  had  been  prac- 
ticed by  Jews^  Greeks  (Lycurgus),  and  Ro- 
mans. He  quoted  as  Cicero's  this  language: 
O  glorious  right  by  the  Divine  favor  obtained  for  us  by 
our  ancestors  in  the  commencement  of  the  Roman  name ; 
by  which  no  man  can  be  the  citizen  of  more  than  one 
country ;  by  which  no  man  can  be  compelled  to  leave  it 
against  his  will,  nor  remain  in  it  against  his  inclination! 
This  is  the  firmest  foundation  of  our  liberty,  that  every 
man  should  have  an  absolute  power  to  retain  or  abandon 
his  right  at  his  election. 

France  in  1793  had  made  the  loss  of  citizen- 
ship follow  from  naturalization  in  a  foreign 
country  or  the  acceptance  of  office  from  other 
than  a  popular  government.  Since  the  right 
of  expatriation  had  been  denied  in  America,^^ 
and  the  enjoyment  of  it  denied  when  the  right 
was  admitted, ^'^  it  was  necessary  for  Congress 
to  secure  them  by  law.  The  law  proposed  was 
in  substance  a  copy  of  the  Virginia  act.  It  did 
not  presume  to  give  the  right,  but  pointed  out 
the  manner  of  exercising  it. 

Anderson  (Ky.)  had  no  doubt  of  the  exist- 

28  Case   of   I.   Williams.  -»  3    Oallas,    133. 


EXPATRIATION  147 

ence  of  the  right;  probably  it  would  not  be 
denied  or  doubted.  But  he  would  examine 
the  question  of  constitutional  power  of  pre- 
scribing rules  for  its  exercise  before  that  of 
the  policy  of  so  doing.  Such  power  did  not 
exist.  It  could  not  be  fairly  inferred,  nor  was 
it  necessary  or  convenient  for  the  exercise  of 
other  powers.  The  grant  of  the  power  to 
naturalize  did  not  imply  its  correlative,  any 
more  than  the  power  to  borrow  money  im- 
plied that  to  lend  money,  or  import  duty  power 
implied  export  duty  power. 

They  must  also  distinguish  between  ac- 
knowledging a  right  and  granting  power  to 
prescribe  the  manner  of  enjoying  the  right. 
The  proposed  Thirteenth  Amendment,  exclud- 
ing any  citizen  from  office  under  a  foreign 
power,  with  the  penalty  that  he  "shall  cease 
to  be  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,"  had  been 
sanctioned  by  twelve  states.  That  Congress 
deemed  there  was  a  necessity  for  that  amend- 
ment was  a  recognition  of  the  fact  that  they 
could  not  declare  the  acts  that  should  be 
equivalent  to  renunciation  of  citizenship.  Yet 
that  was  what  the  bill  in  effect  did.  Rights 
that  the  Constitution  created  might  be  con- 
trolled in  their  exercise  by  law,  but  this  right 
was  not  created  by  it.  If  this  power  existed  in 
any  legislative  body,  it  was  in  the  state  legis- 


148     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

latures.  Some  of  them  had  already  exercised 
it ;  denying  it  to  them  would  lead  to  a  conflict 
with  Virginia. 

This  power  of  declaring  what  should  dis- 
franchise a  citizen  of  a  state  was  too  great  a 
one  to  concede  to  the  general  government. 
It  was  a  question  whether  the  unrestrained 
enjoyment  of  the  right  was  not  better  and 
more  fully  secured  by  denying  to  anybody  the 
power  to  legislate  regarding  it.  Legislation 
to  secure  rights  was  often  unnecessary,  and 
often  dangerous.  Their  perfect  enjoyment  de- 
pended upon  the  entire  absence  of  legislative 
control.  Power  could  be  claimed  that  would 
enable  Congress  to  require  a  mode  of  expa- 
triation so  inconvenient  as  to  amount  to  an 
entire  denial  of  the  right.  Foreign  legislators 
might  even  require  forms  and  notice  of  inten- 
tion. They  were  then  recognizing  the  validity 
of  British  statutes  that  held  the  emigrant  to 
be  bound  by  his  foreign  allegiance.  No  coun- 
tenance should  be  given  to  the  idea  that  their 
naturalized  citizens  had  not  every  privilege 
and  safety.  Emigration  was  rapid  among 
the  states  and  mere  departure  forfeited  the 
character  of  citizenship.  No  state  had  deemed 
a  law  to  be  necessary  to  define  the  act  of  for- 
feiture. 

They  must  rest  simply  upon  the  character 


EXPATRIATION  HQ 

of  the  government  to  keep  their  citizens.  He 
would  never  raise  legal  fences  against  immi- 
gration, nor  have  any  artificial  barriers  to  keep 
men  in;  yet  he  thought  the  bill  before  them 
was  both  unnecessary  and  unconstitutional, 

Johnson  (Ky.)  declared  that  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence  recognized  the  right  of 
expatriation.  Denial  of  it  was  not  modern,  but 
originated  in  the  days  of  feudal  tenures  and 
oath  of  fealty^  perpetual  fealty  leading  to  per- 
petual allegiance.  Not  a  nation  in  Europe  re- 
fused to  let  its  citizens  or  subjects  become  citi- 
zens and  subjects  of  another  nation.  The 
right  was  as  sacred  and  inalienable  as  any 
right.  But  what  became  of  the  power  to 
naturalize  when  the  right  of  expatriation  was 
denied?  Judicial  decisions  against  the  right 
made  legislation  to  point  out  the  mode  of  its 
exercise  indispensable. 

Pindall  (Va.)  had  understood  the  friends  of 
the  bill  as  viewing  it  only  as  providing  a 
record  of  a  legal  expatriation,  but  their  com- 
plaints against  the  courts,  etc.,  proved  that  this 
was  not  so.  Was  it  intended  to  expatriate 
from  the  general  government  only  and  not 
from  the  states?  Or  from  either  one?  Or 
both?  Congress,  he  declared,  had  no  control 
over  state  allegiance,  and  state  allegiance  se- 
cured to  a  person  general  privileges.     There 


I50     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

were  no  considerations  of  policy  or  of  ex- 
pediency to  recommend  the  bill.  It  would  be 
a  shelter  for  the  traitor  and  the  pirate,  and  its 
passage  would  involve  the  commission  of 
fraud  against  their  treaties,  several  of  which 
contained  the  article  that  was  in  the  Spanish 
treaty.  No  one  would  ever  avail  himself  of  the 
provisions  of  the  bill  without  motives  of  idle- 
ness or  criminality.  He  had  never  heard  of  any 
country  that  granted  naturalization  only  after 
an  expatriation  according  to  law.  If  it  were 
otherwise,  citizens  might  have  an  excuse  for 
the  use  of  that  bill.  He  was  willing  to  grant 
the  right  of  expatriation,  but  not  that  of  fight- 
ing against  one's  country.  Something  was 
still  owed  to  the  former  citizenship.  There 
was  no  hint  in  the  Constitution  of  an  oath  of 
abjuration.  As  to  the  difficulties  growing 
out  of  double  allegiance,  they  might  well  leave 
the  individual  to  the  result  of  his  own  en- 
tangling, and  explain  anomalies  by  reference 
to  the  abnormal  state  of  war  and  the  force  it 
necessitated.  The  awkwardness  of  the  con- 
ception was  due  to  forsaking  the  old  view  of 
expatriation  as  involving  a  prejudice  (dis- 
grace) rather  than  a  right.  Virginia,  the  only 
state  adopting  expatriation  as  a  policy,  did  so 
at  the  close  of  the  Revolutionary  war,  and  the 
fact  was  an    evidence    of    her    magnanimity. 


EXPATRIATION  151 

Little  harm  had  resulted  from  her  action,  and 
yet  her  statute  was  better  regarded  as  a  mu- 
seum ornament  than  as  a  legislative  precedent. 
The  bill  before  them  would  do  much  evil. 

Lowndes  (S.  C.)  moved  to  strike  out  sec. 
I  of  the  bill.^"  It  would  bring  no  benefits  and 
was  unconstitutional.  The  existence  of  the 
right  was  admitted,  and  was  sufficiently  recog- 
nized by  Congress.  So  delicate  a  power  as 
that  of  regulating  it  should  be  expressly  grant- 
ed. It  would  release  from  all  liabilities  and 
also  release  from  all  privileges.  The  view 
that  the  Constitution  should  control  the  rights 
of  citizens  was  upheld  by  the  proposed  amend- 
ment already  referred  to.  As  there  was  no 
law  to  regulate  the  exercise  of  rebellion,  so 
no  legislation  was  necessary  to  secure  the 
right  of  expatriation,  even  if  the  Constitution 
had  given  the  needed  power.  What  did  the 
treaty  provision  mean  more  than  the  loss  of 
protection?  Robertson  (La.)  replied  at 
length  to  Lowndes.  Henry  Clay  took  the 
same  view  as  Robertson  as  to  the  Spanish 
treaty  and  referred  to  a  piracy  trial  at  Boston 
as  illustrating  its  effect. 

An  all-day  discussion  ^^  ensued  on  the  mo- 
tion to  strike  out  the  first  section.     IMcLane 

•"  This  motion  was,  of  course,  intended  to  kill  the  bill. 
»i  February  28,    18 18. 


152     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

(Del.)  declared  it  to  be  unnecessary  to  affirm 
or  deny  the  right  to  expatriate.  He  would 
seek  to  show  that  the  measure  was  unconstitu- 
tional and  would  be  inefficient.  Assuming  the 
right,  it  was  a  civil  one  whose  exercise  must 
be  consistent  with  mutual  obligations.  He 
dwelt  on  the  states'-rights  argument  against 
the  constitutionality  of  the  measure.  Even  if 
released  by  the  general  government,  a  person 
continued  to  be  a  citizen  of  his  state.  An  in- 
definite supremacy  over  the  personal  rights 
and  effects  of  individuals  was  implied  in  the 
measure.  It  was  inexpedient  for  many 
reasons,  novel  and  unreasonable.  It  con- 
cerned a  delicate  and  extreme  right  shaking 
the  foundations  of  civil  government.  The 
exercise  of  the  right  presupposed  a  fault  in 
the  country,  and  was  always  to  be  deplored. 
They  should  not  make  that  exercise  easy, 
weakening  the  love  of  country.  A  better 
policy  was  to  encourage  immigration.  The 
right  claimed  exonerated  man  from  every 
sort  of  civil  obligation,  and  legalized  treason, 
plunder,  and  spoil.  Their  duties  to  their  own 
dignity  and  to  the  world  forbade  that.  The 
effects  of  the  law  in  the  case  of  a  crisis  at  home 
might  be  serious.  Many  would  evade  the 
danger  by  means  of  it. 

Johnson  replied  that  McLane's  arguments 


EXPATRIATION  153 

rested  on  an  old  feudal  doctrine  unknown  in 
England  till  the  time  of  William  I.  No  Vir- 
ginian would  abandon  his  country  in  danger. 
Citizens  of  the  United  States  did  possess  the 
right  in  question  in  most  ample,  unlimited, 
and  unlimitable  degree.  They  had  derived  it 
from  heaven.  The  decision  in  the  Williams 
case  was  an  act  of  tyranny  and  oppression,  for 
which  the  judge  ought  to  have  been  im- 
peached. England's  conduct  in  making  two 
years'  service  in  the  navy  constitute  a  person  a 
citizen  asserted  the  right.  To  presume  to 
naturalize,  and  at  the  same  time  to  deny  the 
right  of  expatriation,  ought  to  subject  a  gov- 
ernment to  ridicule  and  scorn.  Nevertheless, 
he  believed  that  the  bill  was  unconstitu- 
tional. 

Cobb  (Ga.)  said  that  the  object  of  the  bill 
was  not  to  change  any  known  law,  but  rather 
to  declare  that  the  principle  of  perpetual  al- 
legiance had  no  force  in  the  United  States. 
The  constitutional  right  to  point  out  the  man- 
ner of  exercising  it  was  clearly  incidental  to 
the  power  of  establishing  a  uniform  rule  of 
naturalization,  and  necessarily  resulted  from  it. 
The  powers  were  correlative,  and  the  one 
could  not  be  conceived  without  the  other.  In 
the  case  of  naturalization,  the  law  only  pre- 
scribed the  rule  for  the  act  of  the  individual. 


154     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

It  was  also  so  in  expatriation,  for  the  bill  im- 
posed no  restriction  on  the  right.  They  need 
not  be  anxious  about  the  fate  of  the  citizen 
who  became  an  outlaw  by  his  own  act.  He 
could  not  conceive  of  any  effect  of  the  meas- 
ure on  state  sovereignty.  After  renouncing 
the  citizenship  of  all  the  states,  one  could  not 
claim  to  be  a  citizen  of  any  one  of  them. 
Prince  Eugene,  Marshal  Saxe,  and  General 
Patkul  had  all  fought  against  the  country  of 
their  birth.  Had  no  difficulties  arisen,  there 
had  been  no  necessity  for  legislating  upon  this 
subject. 

A  decision  to  strike  out  sec.  i  was  reached 
by  a  small  majority  of  the  committee  of  the 
whole.  The  House  concurred  in  this  action. 
A  sharp  contest  then  ensued  to  save  the  bill, 
Johnson  and  Robertson  claiming  that  it  was 
yet  qapable  of  amendment.  Others  opposed 
this  effort  as  utterly  unparliamentary,  and  ad- 
journment was  finally  accomplished  with  a 
motion  by  Johnson  pending,  to  lay  the  bill  on 
the  table.  Later  ^-  Johnson  withdrew  his  mo- 
tion, and  proposed  as  a  substitute  for  the  re- 
maining section  of  the  bill  a  new  measure,  as 
follows : 

That  whereas  sundry  persons  who  had  been  citizens  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  and  who  had  exercised  the 

32  March  2,    1818. 


EXPATRIATION  i5S 

right  of  dissolving  the  connection  which  bound  them  to  the 
United  States  in  the  character  of  citizens,  by  voluntarily 
and  regularly  becoming  citizens  or  subjects  of  other  gov- 
ernments, have  been  held  bound  to  answer  in  the  character 
of  citizens,  in  the  courts  of  the  United  States,  for  offences 
alleged  to  have  been  committed  subsequently  to  the  exer- 
cise of  this  right ;  and  for  which  citizens  only  would  be 
amenable,  in  the  said  courts.  And  whereas,  in  the  Declara- 
tion of  Independence,  of  the  thirteen  United  States  of 
America,  the  following  truths  are  held  to  be  self-evident, 
that  all  men  are  created  equal,  that  they  are  endowed  by 
their  Creator  with  certain  unalienable  rights ;  that  among 
these  are  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  There- 
fore be  it  enacted  and  it  is  hereby  expressly  enacted  and 
declared  that  all  men  do  possess  the  right  to  seek  their 
happiness  in  any  climate,  and  under  any  form  of  govern- 
ment they  may  elect ;  and  that,  coiisequently,  the  right  to 
dissolve  the  connexion  which  binds  the  individual  to  the 
government  of  the  United  States,  in  the  character  of  citi- 
zen, and  to  form  a  similar  connexion  with  any  other  gov- 
ernment, is  equally  unalienable,  and  founded  on  truth 
equally  self-evident. 

Williams  (N,  C.)  declared  it  to  be  beyond 
the  constitutional  power  of  the  House  to  pass 
the  measure,  and  that  every  honest  man  in  the 
country  would  disdain  to  take  advantage  of 
it.  Should  they  then  legislate  for  the  vicious? 
No  man  in  the  House  was  a  stronger  advocate 
of  the  right  of  expatriation  than  he  was,  but 
they  could  not  regulate  it  without  circum- 
scribing it.  It  was  a  right  reserved  to  the 
people.  They  were  proposing  to  legislate  fel- 
low-citizens into  aliens.     He  touched  a  very 


156     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

fundamental  question  when  he  said  that  his  op- 
ponents held  that  the  right  of  expatriation  at- 
tached to  the  individual  upon  his  leaving  his 
native  country,  while  those  with  him  held  that 
it  attached  upon  his  becoming  the  citizen  or 
subject  of  another  country.  The  difference  was 
as  to  a  point  of  time.  All  persons  must  be 
subject  to  the  laws  of  some  society.  The 
United  States  could  not  make  a  person  a  sub- 
ject of  Great  Britain,  nor  Great  Britain  make 
one  a  subject  of  the  United  States.  If  an 
American  became  a  subject  of  Britain,  it  was 
by  British  law ;  and  this  right  to  become  a  Brit- 
ish subject  the  United  States  acknowledged. 
Abbott  (Ga.)  favored  the  amendment  as  a 
mere  declaratory  expression  of  Congress.  It 
might  have  some  weight  with  the  courts. 
Johnson  also  declared  that  the  question  before 
them  then  was  a  mere  declaratory  provision, 
the  object  being  to  exclude  a  wrong  inference 
from  the  last  vote.  It  prescribed  no  rule  and 
no  act.  No  construction  of  it  as  legislating 
a  person  out  of  his  rights  was  possible.  After 
other  unreported  speeches,  a  motion  to  post- 
pone indefinitely  both  bill  and  amendment 
failed :  yeas,  y-}^ ;  nays,  88.^^  A  motion  to  sub- 
stitute the  word  "declared"  for  "enacted"  in 
the  enacting  clause  was  lost.^^ 

2*  House  Journal,   Fifteenth  Congress,   First  Session,   289. 
^*  Annals  of  Congress,  Fifteenth  Congress,   First   Session,    1093. 
Vote,  67  to  76. 


EXPATRIATION  157 

Again  an  amendment  was  offered  in  an  cf' 
fort  to  save  a  part  of  the  contention  of  the  sup- 
porters of  the  bill,  and  provide  a  measure  that 
a  majority  of  the  House  would  accept.  Rob- 
ertson moved  to  strike  out  the  second  section 
and  insert  the  following: 

That  in  all  prosecutions  which  may  hereafter  be  insti- 
tuted against  any  person  for  having  engaged  in  military,  or 
naval  service,  for  or  against  any  foreign  power,  when  with- 
out the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  who,  before  the 
commission  of  the  fact  with  which  he  may  stand  charged, 
shall  have  been  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  but  shall 
have  exercised  his  right  of  expatriation,  by  becoming  the 
citizen  or  subject  of  any  foreign  state  or  community  by 
adoption,  it  shall  be  lawfu'  for  such  person  to  give  such 
fact  of  expatriation  in  evidence,  upon  the  general  issue, 
and  if  upon  the  trial  of  such  person  so  charged  as  aforesaid, 
he  shall  prove  such  fact  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  jury,  he 
shall  be  discharged  from  such  prosecution." 

As  a  result  of  this  amendment,  action  on  the 
bill  was  deferred  to  give  time  for  its  considera- 
tion. When  the  bill  was  next  before  the 
House, ^^  Forsythe  moved  to  insert  between 
"by"  and  "becoming"  in  the  phrase  "by  be- 
coming the  citizen  or  subject  of  arly  foreign 
state,"  the  words  "recording  in  the  office  of 
the  clerk  of  some  one  of  the  district  courts  of 
the  United  States,  a  declaration  that  such  is 
his  intention  twelve  months  prior  to." 

^^  House   Journal,    Fifteenth    Congress,    First    Session,    291. 
3"  March    4,    1817. 


158     NATUR.\LIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

Robertson's  amendment  had  proposed  the 
test  of  foreign  citizenship  to  determine  expa- 
triation. He  had  thus  occupied  the  ground  of 
WilHams  (N.  C),  only  that  he  sought  to  add 
to  it  the  sanction  of  a  law  with  a  limited  ap- 
plication. Forsythe's  amendment  involved  a 
long  step  back  toward  the  measure  first  pro- 
posed, and  was  certain  to  revive  a  string  of 
constitutional  objections.  It  was  lost,  appar- 
ently without  division.  A  motion  followed  to 
strike  out  "for  or,"  and  thus  limit  the  appli- 
cation of  the  measure  to  the  case  of  service 
"against  any  foreign  power."  Thus  a  right 
to  fight  against  one's  native  country  would 
have  been  refused  recognition,  and  empha- 
sis given  to  fighting  against  a  foreign  power. 
The  motion  was  supported  by  Terry  and 
Coulson,  and  opposed  by  Edwards,  Rob- 
ertson, and  Lowndes.  It  failed  to  pass  by  a 
large  majority.  "For  or  against  any  foreign 
power"  remained,  but  a  motion  in  the  same 
direction  as  the  last  one,  avoiding  some  of  the 
inferences  that  it  would  have  involved,  passed. 
The  phrase  "and  not  in  hostility  against  the 
said  states"  was  inserted  after  the  words 
"United  States,"  by  a  vote  of  65  to  59. 

Several  other  amendments  were  then  agreed 
to,  the  result  of  which  was  to  eliminate  all  direct 
reference  to  expatriation.     The  clause  "shall 


EXPATRIATION  iS9 

have  exercised  his  right  of  expatriation,  by  be- 
coming the  citizen  or  subject  of  any  foreign 
state  or  community  by  adoption,"  was  changed 
to  read  "shall  have  bona  fide  and  voluntarily 
become  the  citizen  or  subject  of  any  foreign 
state,  w^hile  within  its  jurisdiction."  This  re- 
sult was  reached  step  by  step.  "Or  com- 
munity" and  "by  adoption"  were  dropped  out 
separately,  and  "bona  fide  and  voluntarily," 
and  "while  within  its  jurisdiction,"  were  sep- 
arately added.  In  the  original  amendment, 
"give  such  fact  of  expatriation"  was  changed 
to  "give  the  fact  that  he  has  been  naturalized 
in  some  foreign  state." 

After  being  thus  amended,  the  amendment 
was  substituted  for  sec.  2  (all  that  remained  of 
the  original  bill),  by  a  vote  of  93  to  61.^" 

Sec.  2,  which  thus  disappeared,  had  made 
the  renaturalization  of  persons  expatriated 
the  condition  of  their  restoration  to  citizen- 
ship. Williams  (N.  C.)  offered  at  this  point 
a  new  section  declaring  that  no  person  who 
availed  himself  of  the  privileges  of  the  bill  and 
became  expatriated  should  ever  after  be  per- 
mitted to  be  naturalized  as  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States.     His  motion  was  rejected. 

Robertson  opposed  the  bill  as  it  had  been 
amended,    mainly   the    clause    that    denied    a 

'"'House  Journal,  Fifteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  298;  An- 
nals of  Congress,   Fifteenth   Congress,    First  Session,    1 104-6. 


i6o     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

right  to  fight  for  the  country  of  adoption 
against  the  native  country.  His  opposition 
led  to  the  reconsideration  and  defeat  of  the 
amendment  by  which  the  phrase  "and  not  in 
hostiHty  against  the  said  states"  had  been  in- 
serted. The  final  action  taken  at  the  end  of 
this  long  course  of  debate  and  maneuvering 
v^as  to  reject  the  bill  by  a  vote  of  64  to  75.^^ 
No  other  serious  attempt  to  define  the  right  of 
expatriation  occurred  for  fifty  years. 

-  Niles  Register^^  quoted  the  National  Intel- 
ligencer in  reference  to  what  the  latter  called 
"the  animated  debate"  on  the  expatriation 
bill.  It  said  that  the  sense  of  the  House  ap- 
peared to  be 

against  legislating  on  the  question  of  expatriation,  on  the 
ground,  that  to  prescribe  the  mode  of  exercising  a  funda- 
mental right  is  to  assume  the  power  of  limiting  it,  which 
power,  it  is  contended,  does  not  belong  to  Congress. 

The  question  was  one  surrounded  with  diffi- 
culties, but  the  able  debate  would  have  shed  a 
light  that  might  lead  to  a 

definitive  rule  on  a  point  regarding  which  it  appears,  that 
the  decision  of  Congress  and  the  opinion  of  the  courts  of 
the  United  States  are  at  variance. 

A  few  later  references  to  the  subject  may  be 
mentioned  in  closing  this  chapter.     Editorial 

*^  House  Journal,  Fifteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  300;  An- 
nals  of   Congress,    Fifteenth    Congress,    F"irst    Session,    1107. 

3»  XIV,  27;  February  27,    1818. 


EXPATRIATION  i6i 

articles  appeared  at  different  times  in  Niles 
Register  on  the  subject  of  expatriation.  In 
one  the  editor  wrote :  "Without  expatriation 
there  cannot  be  naturalization."  ^"  In  another 
the  "perpetual  allegiance  doctrine"  of  "praters 
of  royalty"  was  attacked,  and  proofs  were  of- 
fered that  even  Russia  was  naturalizing.^^  A 
similar  and  more  forcible  article  was  based 
upon  the  report  in  London  papers  of  the  nat- 
uralization of  George  Leopold  Coburg  by  Par- 
liament "in  the  space  of  six  minutes."  Per- 
petual allegiance  was  asserted  to  be  "the  most 
abominable  doctrine  that  ever  was  held  forth." 
For  anti-slavery  people  to  hold  it  "was  too  im- 
pudent tO'  be  borne  with  patience."'*-  An  ar- 
ticle entitled  "Who  Are  Citizens?"  held  that 
Americans  who  had  served  Mexico  in  war 
were  expatriated  and  should  not  vote  in  the 
United  States.  Either  they  were  not  citizens 
or  they  were  pirates ;  and  yet  a  law  was  needed 
to  provide  regularly  for  expatriation. ^-"^ 

John  Ouincy  Adams  wrote  in  his  diary  in 
1824  that  Calhoun  doubted  the  right  of  ex- 
patriation, declared  that  he  had  always  been 
asfainst  it  in  feelino-,  and  had  never  committed 
himself    upon    it    during    the    War    of    1812. 

*"  Niles  Register,   V,   237;    18 13. 

*'^  Ibid.,   X,    167;    1816.  ■•2 /biJ.,   X,    170;    i8i6. 

«» /bid.,  XXXV,  162;   November  8,    1828. 


I62     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

Adams  agreed  with  him  in  sentiment,  but 
thought  that  they  had  foreclosed  that  argu- 
ment against  themselves  by  the  oath  renoun- 
cing foreign  allegiance,  which  they  required 
from  foreigners  as  the  condition  of  naturaliza- 
tion. A  few  days  later  the  subject  came  up 
again  between  them,  and  Calhoun  was  em- 
phatically of  the  opinion  that  native-born  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States  had  no  such  right, 
except  Virginians.  They  had  it  by  virtue  of 
a  law  of  their  state.'*^ 

The  limitation  of  this  opinion  to  native-born 
citizens  involves  a  peculiar  distinction.  The  in- 
ference from  it  is  that  the  United  States,  by 
requiring  renunciation  of  former  allegiance 
from  foreigners,  had  conferred  upon  them  a 
right  (not  shared  by  native-born  citizens)  to 
claim  the  principle  of  expatriation  against  the 
government,  if  they  should  wish  to  do  so. 
Probably  the  suggestion  given  by  Adams 
helped  Calhoun  to  reach  this  conclusion.  The 
suggestion  as  to  Virginians  is  a  striking  illus- 
tration of  the  controlling  character  of  the 
states'-rights  idea  in  the  mind  of  Calhoun  at 
that  early  period.  The  complete  denial  of  any 
real  federal  citizenship,  or  at  least  of  any  such 
citizenship  without  the  domain  of  ordinary 
state  control,  is  fundamental  to  it. 

**  J.  Q.  Adams,  Memoirs,  VI,  381,  385;  June   10  and   13,    1824. 


EXPATRIATION  163 

The  United  States  Senate  in  1839  *^  referred 
and  ordered  printed  a  resolution  of  the  Mich- 
igan General  Assembly  urging  the  adoption 
of  measures  to  insure  that  foreign  powers 
recognize  the  rights  of  naturalized  citizens. 
In  substance,  it  was  as  follows :  Whereas  the 
constitution  of  Michigan  is  pre-eminently  char- 
acterized by  its  spirit  of  liberality  to  the  for- 
eign emigrant,^*^  and  it  is  just,  right,  and  proper 
that  no  envious  distinctions  should  exist  in 
the  United  States  between  adopted  and  native 
citizens,  and  the  free  right  of  expatriation  is 
yet  unrecognized  in  treaties  with  foreign 
nations,  subjecting,  in  case  of  war,  many  adopted 
citizens  to  the  peril  of  being  deemed  and  treated 
as  traitors ;  Resolved :  That  our  senators  are  in- 
structed and  our  representative  is  requested 
to  use  their  efforts  for  the  adoption  of  such 
measures  as  will  insure  the  recognition,  by 
foreign  powers,  of  the  absolute  citizenship  of 
all  foreigners  naturalized  by  the  existing  laws 
of  the  United  States.  This  resolution,  by  its 
reference  to  treaties  with  foreign  powers  on 
the  subject  of  expatriation,  forecasted  clearly 
the  ultimate  solution  of  the  question. 

♦"5  (341)  Senate  Documents,  Twenty-fifth  Congress,  Third  Ses- 
sion, No.  262  (February  25,  1839) ;  (33?)  Senate  Journal,  Twenty- 
fifth  Congress,  Third  Session,  270;  and  (353)  ibid.,  Twenty-sixth 
Congress,   First   Session,   84. 

*"  Every  "white  male  inhabitant"  of  legal  age  who  was  "a 
resident  of  the  State"  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  first 
Michigan  constitution  in  1835  was  given  the  suffrage  (Poore, 
Charters  and  Constitutions,   I,  984). 


l64     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

An  accompanying  memorial  *^  of  natural- 
ized citizens  of  Michigan  prayed  for  measures 
to  secure  the  recognition  of  their  rights  as 
citizens  of  the  United  States.  They  had  sev- 
ered former  relations,  transferred  their  alle- 
giance, and  were  attached  by  strongest  ties 
and  by  solemn  oath  to  the  United  States  gov- 
ernment. By  requiring  them  to  bear  arms 
it  virtually  guaranteed  to  them  the  full  and 
equal  rights  of  natives.  Yet  British  jurists 
and  courts  insisted  on  the  doctrine  of  perpet- 
ual allegiance,  which  was  at  war  with  their 
equal  rights.  The  enlightenment  and  liberal 
policy  of  the  British  cabinet  at  that  time  ^^ 
justified  belief  in  their  favorable  consideration 
of  the  measures  desired.  A  few  weeks  before 
the  resolution  of  the  Michigan  Legislature 
was  received,  the  Senate  had  referred  the  pe- 
tition of  a  naturalized  Irishman,  who  had  es- 
caped from  Canada  after  being  sentenced  for 
treason  for  aiding  in  the  Canadian  rebellion. 
He  asked  that  the  rights  of  naturalized  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States  might  be  ascertained 
and  defined.  England's  laws  were  character- 
izing one-fourth  of  the  population  of  the  United 
States  as  her  perpetual  subjects.    The  United 

■"  (341)  Senate  Documents,  Twenty-fifth  Congress,  Third  Ses- 
sion,  No.   263. 

*^  This  was  the  second  Melbourne  ministry.  Palmerston,  John 
Russell,   and  T.    B.    Macaulay   were   in  the  leading  offices. 


EXPATRIATION  165 

States  should  settle  forever  their  status  in  time 
of  peace,  for  in  case  of  war  with  England 
they  could  enlist  only  subject  to  treason  pen- 
alties.^^ 

A  petition  of  Sherlock  S.  Gregory,  Renssel- 
aer County,  New  York,  was  presented  in  the 
House  in  1837  t»y  John  Quincy  Adams.  The 
author  prayed  to  be  considered  an  alien,  or 
stranger  in  the  land,  so  long  as  slavery  existed 
and  the  wrongs  of  the  Indians  were  unre- 
quited or  unrepented  of.^" 

In  January,  1858,  a  resolution  was  agreed 
to  in  the  House  directing  the  Committee  on 
Judiciary  to  inquire  if  any,  and  what,  legisla- 
tion by  Congress  might  be  proper  to  define 
what  acts  should,  or  should  not,  work  expa- 
triation or  severance  of  allegiance  by  citizens 
of  the  United  States ; 

and  also  whether  provision  by  law  ought  to  be  made  for 
reinvesting  with  citizenship  such  persons,  born  in  the 
United  States,  as  may  have  assumed  allegiance  or  citizen- 
ship to  any  foreign  government.* 

Two  years  later^^  a  similar  resolution  received 
the  same  reference,  and  with  it  the  further 
query  whether  provision  by  law  ought  not  to 

**  (340)  Senate  Documents,  Twenty-fifth  Congress,  Third  Ses- 
sion,  No.    165. 

^"  (310)  House  Journal,  Twenty-fifth  Congress,  First  Session, 
S3;   September   14,   1837. 

s'  (940)   Ibid.,  Thirty-fifth   Congress,   First   Session,    199. 

5-  February    16,    i860. 


1 66     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

be  made  to  vindicate  the  exemption  of  nat- 
uralized citizens  of  the  United  States  from  the 
claims  of  other  governments  of  a  right  to  en- 
force against  such  citizens  the  obligations  of 
a  prior  and  different  allegiance.^^  Later  the 
Judiciary  Committee,  at  its  own  request, 
was  discharged  from  the  consideration  of 
this  last  subject  in  the  resolution,  and  it  w^as 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Af- 
fairs.^"^     A  bill  introduced  by  I.  N.  Morris, 

to  provide  for  expatriation,  etc.,  and  to  restrain  citizens  of 
the  United  States  from  entering  into  the  military  or  naval 
service   of   foreign    States,    etc.,   and    for   other   purposes, 

was  before  the  House  Judiciary  Committee  in 
i860;  and  was  ordered  printed,  together  with 
certain  notes  on  the  subject,  in  March  of  that 
year.  A  few  days  later,  on  motion  of  its  chair- 
man, the  committee  was  discharged  from  further 
consideration  of  this  bill.^^ 

^2  (1041)  House    Journal,    Thirty-sixth    Congress,    First    Session, 
314- 

5*  (1042)   ibid.,  994. 

6^(1041)    ibid.,   216,  311,   423,   519. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  ACT  OF  1824 

After  the  War  of  1812,  and  with  the  com- 
ing of  peace  to  Europe,  immigration  to  the 
United  States  increased  very  rapidly.  It  was 
generally  welcomed  until  1838.  Nearly  all  of 
the  agitation  on  the  subject  of  naturalization 
had  for  its  object  the  removal  of  restrictions 
upon  aliens.  The  provision  of  the  laws  that 
required  a  previous  declaration  of  intention 
was  the  one  most  vigorously  attacked.  The 
opposition  to  it  was  successful  in  changing 
the  law  in  several  respects  during  the  decade 
from  1820  to  1830.  The  general  principle 
that  there  should  be  a  preliminary  testing 
period  under  a  declaration  of  intention  with- 
stood all  attacks  upon  it^  but  the  period  re- 
quired was  reduced  from  three  to  two  years. 
A  special  modification  of  the  law  was  made  in 
favor  of  aliens  who  came  to  the  United  States 
as  minors,  and  hence  were  incapable  of  taking 
the  steps  preliminary  to  citizenship  during  the 
early  years  of  their  residence.  It  was  thought 
that  persons  who  cast  their  lot  with  the  United 
States  in  youth  could  more  safely  be  trusted 
to  make  good  citizens  than  those  who  came 

167 


i68     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

later.  Their  admission  did  not  require  the 
same  safeguards.  Another  change  was  in  the 
interest  of  persons  whose  long  residence  in 
the  United  States  might  compensate  for  the 
lack  of  the  required  declaration.  The  history 
of  these  measures  is  now  to  be  considered. 
The  first  two  of  the  changes  mentioned  above 
were  made  by  the  act  of  1824,  and  the  third 
by  that  of  1828. 

Early  in  1822,  on  motion  of  Tucker  (S.  C), 
the  House  Judiciary  Committee  considered 
the  matter  of  allowing  aliens  who  had  resided 
in  the  United  States  one  year  before  the  be- 
ginning of  the  War  of  1812,  and  continuously 
since,  to  become  citizens  without  complying 
with  the  requirement  of  a  declaration  of  in- 
tention three  years  before  their  application. 
The  report  on  the  subject  was  as  follows: 

The  condition  is,  in  the  opinion  of  the  committee,  a 
very  reasonable  one,  and  one  with  which  it  is  easy  to  com- 
ply where  the  intention  really  exists.  To  dispense  with  it  is 
to  commit  a  breach  in  the  established  system,  and  to  make 
residence  without  declared  intention  to  become  a  citizen, 
sufficient  to  entitle  a  person  to  become  a  citizen.  This  does 
not  seem  to  the  committee  to  be  necessary  or  expedient,  and 
they  therefore  offer  the  following  resolution :  "Resolved, 
That  the  committee  be  discharged  from  the  further  con- 
sideration of  the  subject." 

The  report  and  the  subject  were  both  effect- 
ually disposed  of  for  that  session  by  reference 


ACT  OF  1824  169 

to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the 
State  of  the  Union. ^  The  next  session  the  Hrmse 
ordered  the  report  to  be  reprinted.^ 

Prehminary  to  the  passage  of  the  act  of 
1824  there  was  consideration  of  a  request  for 
a  private  naturahzation  act,  the  object  of 
which  was  to  avoid  the  requirement  of  resi- 
dence after  a  declaration  of  intention.  Rep- 
resentative Cobb  (Ga.)  presented  the  petition 
of  Peter  L.  Jackson,  representing  that  he  was 
a  native  of  England,  and  came  to  the  United 
States  while  a  minor  in  1802.  He  had  not  been 
naturalized,  but  had  grown  to  manhood  in  the 
country,  had  married  a  native  American 
woman,  raised  a  family  of  children,  and  had 
repeatedly  performed  military  duty  in  the  last 
war  with  England.  Since  the  war  he  had  re- 
peatedly been  appointed  to  office  by  the  ex- 
ecutive and  the  people  of  Georgia,  and  had 
ever  considered  himself  to  be  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States.  Recently,  however,  he  had 
been  ejected  from  a  civil  office  to  which  he 
had  been  elected,  as  the  result  of'  a  judicial 
decision  that  he  was  not  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States.  He  prayed  that  a  special  act  might  be 
passed  admitting  him  forthwith  to  the  rights 

*  (62)  House  Journal,  Seventeenth  Congress,  First  Session, 
268,  349;  {70)  House  Ret^orts  of  Committees,  Seventeenth  Congress, 
I'irst   Session,    No.    68. 

'■^  (86)  House  Reports  of  Committees.  Seventeenth  Congress, 
Second    Session,    No.    47. 


I70     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

of  a  citizen.  The  House  Judiciary  Committee, 
to  whom  this  petition  was  referred,  reported 
briefly:  "Resolved,  That  the  prayer  of  the 
petitioner  ought  not  to  be  granted."  The 
House  concurred  in  the  report.^  Probably  no 
favor  would  have  been  shown  to  any  propo- 
sition to  naturalize  a  single  individual.  The 
same  session  of  Congress  that  rejected  this 
petition,  did,  however,  let  the  bars  down  for 
the  class  of  persons  to  which  this  petitioner 
belonged. 

The  aliens  of  Paterson,  N.  J.,  at  a  meet- 
ing held  October  21,  1823,  perhaps  inau- 
gurated the  movement  leading  to  the  changes 
that  were  made  in  1824.  They  addressed 
"their  fellow  emigrants  throughout  the  union," 
and  called  on  all  brother-aliens  to  co-operate 
with  them.    They  said  : 

We,  conceiving  that  the  aHen  laws  are  detrimental  to 
the  United  States,  and  injurious  to  us,  deem  it  to  be  our 
duty  to  make  an  appeal  to  Congress  to  obtain  a  revision  of 
them. 

They  were  unalterably  convinced  that  their 
full  participation  in  the  republican  immunities 
was  essentially  interwoven  with  the  prosperity 
of  the  commonwealth.  The  interest  of  the 
citizen  and  the  republican  immigrant  were  in 
union  of  sentiment.     They  hoped  that  discus- 

^  (92)  House  Journal,  Eighteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  86, 
ii8. 


ACT  OF  i824  171 

sion  of  the  subject  of  intention  would  make 
clear  that  the  probationary  laws  were  oppo- 
site in  their  nature  to  the  liberal  and  mild  in- 
stitutions of  the  United  States,  which  had  at- 
tracted them  from  transatlantic  despotism. 
Thousands  of  them,  unacquainted  with  the 
nature  of  the  existing  alien  law,  had  neglected 
to  comply  with  its  provisions.  They  had 
lacked  knowledge  of  the  proper  mode  of  pro- 
cedure, and  distance  from  the  proper  authori- 
ties had  been  an  almost  insuperable  obstacle 
in  their  way.  They  called  earnestly  for  the 
attention  of  their  brother-aliens  to  consider 
their  best  interests,  and  submitted  to  them 
the  propriety  of  petitioning  Congress  to  facili- 
tate the  right  of  citizenship.  They  urged  the 
aliens  in  each  state  to  solicit  the  aid  of  their 
members  of  Congress.  They  appealed  to  citi- 
zens also  for  assistance  to  obtain  their  reason- 
able request.  It  would  remove  the  prejudices 
generated  by  national  feeling,  and  enable  the 
firm  supporters  of  the  government  to  distin- 
guish friends  from  foes.  Finally,  they  resolved 
to  raise  a  subscription  to  further  their  views, 
and  solicited  editors  generally  to  insert  their 
appeal.'* 

Petitions  from  various  parts  of  the  country 
were  soon  before  Congress.     New  Jersey  and 

*  Niles  Register,  XXV,   150. 


172     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

New  York  City  were  represented,  and  citizens 
of  New  York  supported  the  request  of  the 
aHens  in  a  separate  petition,^  Sundry  aliens 
of  Louisiana  prayed  that  the  laws  upon  the 
subject  of  naturalization  be  amended  to  the 
end  that  greater  facilities  might  be  afforded 
to  foreigners  intending  to  become  citizens. 
Other  Louisiana  aliens  prayed  that  a  special 
law  might  be  passed  for  their  naturalization, 
for  reasons  set  forth  in  their  petition.^  A 
memorial  of  certain  inhabitants  of  Savannah, 
Ga.,  represented  that  they  were  natives  of 
foreign  countries,  who  had  reported,  upon 
their  arrival  in  America,  to  the  clerks  of  courts 
of  the  United  States  and  signed  a  declaration 
of  intention  to  become  citizens  of  the  United 
States.  They  had  also  taken  the  oaths,  and 
ever  since,  until  lately,  had  supposed  them- 
selves to  be  citizens  of  the  United  States.  A 
recent  decision  of  the  United  States  District 
Court  for  Georgia  had  held  that  their  naturali- 
zations were  illegal,  and  that  they  were  aliens 
in  consequence  of  their  not  having  reported 
themselves  and  signed  the  declaration  in  open 
court.  They  prayed  that  one  act  might  be 
passed  to  legalize  the  acts  b)^  which  it  was 
supposed  that  they  became  citizens. '^ 

^Annals  of  Congress,  Eighteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  1428; 
January    19,    February    9,    1824. 

"  House  Journal,    Eighteenth   Congress,    First   Session,   238,   288. 

''  Annals  of  Congress,  Eighteenth  Congress,  First  Session, 
1619;    February   23,    1824. 


ACT  OF  1824  1 73 

The  House  referred  the  Louisiana  petitions 
to  a  select  committee,**  and  a  httle  later  trans- 
ferred to  it  a  number  of  petitions  that  had 
gone  to  the  Judiciary  Committee.''  Among 
the  subjects  transferred  to  the  special  com- 
mittee was  a  resolution  of  inquiry  as  to 
whether  any  changes  were  necessary  in  the 
existing  naturalization  laws, 

and  also,  into  the  expediency  of  furnishing  copies  of  those 
laws  to  the  courts  of  the  several  states  authorized  to 
naturalize  aliens,  so  as  to  secure  to  persons  desirous  of 
naturalization  the  benefit  thereof.^" 

As  a  rule,  reference  to  a  select  committee 
meant  consignment  to  the  hands  of  friends. 
It  was  the  regular  method  of  saving  a  meas- 
ure from  a  hostile  standing  committee,  or  from 
a  committee  whose  attitude  toward  it  might 
be  uncertain.  A  bill  was  reported  in  part  on 
March  8.^^  Apparently  the  committee  in- 
tended to  deal  with  the  variety  of  (juestions 
involved  in  the  various  petitions  before  it,  but 
for  some  reason,  probably  because  the  Senate 
was  making  progress  with  a  measure  before 
it,  the  House  carried  its  own  measures  no 
farther. 

*  February    i6,   and   March   3. 

*  (92)  House  Journal,  Eighteenth  Congress,  First  Session,  238, 
288;  Annals  of  Congress,  Eighteentli  Congress,  First  Session,  1627; 
February   24,    1824. 

'"  (92)    House   Journal.    Kightecnth   Congress,    First    Session,    46. 

11  (92)  ibid.,  298. 


174     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

The  Senate  had  started  from  a  petition  of 
Indiana  aHens,  praying  for  a  modification  of 
the  laws.  The  first  bill  reported  by  its  Judi- 
ciary Committee  was  recommitted.  It  was  re- 
ported back  without  amendment  and  laid  on 
the  table,  and  a  new  bill  that  accompanied  it 
was  pushed  rapidly  to  its  passage,  after  under- 
going one  amendment,  on  the  motion  of 
Holmes  (Me.),  limiting  its  provisions  to  free 
white  persons.  A  motion  by  Taylor  (Va.)  to 
strike  out  all  after  the  first  section,  and  insert 
two  new  sections,  was  lost.  Nothing  can  be 
conjectured  as  to  the  nature  and  purpose  of 
this  amendment. ^^ 

There  remained  only  six  days  of  the  ses- 
sion. After  three  days  the  House  Judiciary 
Committee  reported  the  Senate  bill  without 
amendment.  The  House  passed  it  the  next 
day  at  an  evening  session,  and  the  President 
signed  it  the  same  night. ^^ 

Meanwhile  the  House  Judiciary  Committee 
had  received  instructions  to  inquire  into  the 
expediency  "of  fixing,  by  law,  the  fees  proper 
to  be  allowed  for  the  official  duties  performed 
in  relation  to  the  naturalization  of  aliens,"  ^* 

^-  (88)     Senate    Journal,  Eighteenth     Congress,     First    Session, 

136,    151,    196,    290,    298,    449,  4SS;   Annals  of   Congress,    Eighteenth 

Congress,    First   Session,    May  21,    1824. 

1^  (92)  House  Journal,  Eighteenth  Congress,  First  Session, 
568,  569,  577,  593;  (88)  Senate  Journal,  Eighteenth  Congress, 
First  Session,  499. 

^*  March  3,   1824. 


ACT  OF  i824  175 

and  the  expediency  "of  prohibiting,  by  law, 
the  employment  of  any  person,  except  a  citi- 
zen of  the  United  States,  in  any  of  the  Depart- 
ments of  the  Government."  ^^ 

The  act  of  1824  was  entitled:  "An  act  in 
further  addition  to  'An  act  to  establish  an 
uniform  rule  of  naturalization,  and  to  repeal 
the  acts  heretofore  passed.'  "  Sec.  i  provided 
that  any  alien,  being  free  white  and  under 
twenty-one,  who  should  have  resided  in  the 
United  States  three  years,  and  continued  to 
reside  therein  to  the  time  of  making  his  appli- 
cation to  become  a  citizen,  might,  after  be- 
coming twenty-one,  and  after  he  had  resided 
in  the  United  States  five  years,  including  three 
years  of  his  minority,  be  admitted  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States  without  having  made  the 
required  declaration  three  years  before  his  ad- 
mission. The  required  declaration  was  to  be 
made  at  the  time  of  his  admission,  and  also 
the  further  declaration  on  oath,  and  proof  to 
the  satisfaction  of  the  court,  that  for  the  prev- 
ious three  years  it  had  been  his  bona  fide  in- 
tention to  become  a  citizen  of  the  United 
States.  In  all  other  respects  the  former  laws 
were  to  be  complied  with. 

Sec.  2  declared  that  no  certificates  of  nat- 
uralization previously  obtained  from  any  court 

^^  March  8,  1824;  (92)  House  Journal.  Kighteenth  Congress, 
First   Session,    289,    299. 


176     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

of  record  should  be  deemed  invalid  in  conse- 
f|uence  of  omission  to  comply  with  the  re- 
quirements of  sec.  I  of  the  act  of  1816.  Sec.  3 
referred  to  any  declarations  of  intention  made 
bona  fide  before  the  clerks  of  proper  courts, 
and  made  them  as  valid  as  though  they  had 
been  made  before  the  courts  themselves.  The 
final  section  provided  that  a  declaration  of  in- 
tention to  become  a  citizen  made  according 
to  law  by  any  free  white  alien,  two  years  be- 
fore his  admission,  should  be  a  sufficient  com- 
pliance with  the  requirement  of  the  law.^^ 

Aliens  still  urged  further  modifications  of 
the  laws  for  naturalization.  Van  Buren  pre- 
sented a  petition  to  this  effect  in  1825,  and 
another  in  1826.^^  In  1826,  on  the  motion  of 
Weems  (Md.),  the  House  Committee  on 
Judiciary  was  instructed  to  consider  the  ex- 
pediency of  amending  the  naturalization  laws 
so  that  when  any  person  applied  for  citizen- 
ship and  proved,  by  two  witnesses,  five  years' 
previous  residence  in  the  United  States,  with 
the  places  of  the  same,  he  should  be  deemed 
a  citizen  and  be  entitled  to  a  certificate  of  nat- 
uralization, although  he  had  omitted,  from 
ignorance  or  improper  information,  or  from 
being  a  minor,  to  have  entered  his  name  as  a 

^"  Statutes  at   Large,    IV,    69. 

'^'^  Niles  Register,  XXVII,  412;  (124)  Senate  Journal,  Nine- 
teenth Congress,   First  Session,    103. 


ACT  OF  i824  177 

candidate  for  naturalization.  The  committee 
was  to  inquire  also  as  to  other  alterations  that 
might  be  necessary.  Nothing  came  of  this  mo- 
tion, and  it  was  renewed  the  following  session 
with  as  little  result.^ ^ 

John  Quincy  Adams,  then  president,  wrote 
in  his  diary,  July  3,  1827: 

Mr.  Rush  called,  and  read  me  a  letter  from  himself  to 
C.  J.  Ingersoll  upon  the  subject  of  naturalizing  foreigners. 
He  is  averse  to  all  laws  restrictive  of  naturalization,  and 
v^fould  confer  the  rights  of  a  native  citizen  to  every  for- 
eigner from  the  day  of  his  setting  foot  upon  our  soil.  With 
this  opinion  I  do  not  exactly  concur.^' 

A  year  later  ^^  the  above-mentioned  com- 
mittee received  similar  instructions  as  to  "re- 
vising and  reducing  into  one,  the  several  acts 
of  Congress  establishing  rules  of  naturaliza- 
tion;" and,  also,  as  to  admitting  aliens  who 
were  in  the  United  States  before  1812  on  the 
same  terms  as  those  who  arrived  before  1802 
were  admitted  (i.  e.,  without  a  previous  dec- 
laration of  intention).  For  the  third  time 
Weems  now  secured  the  reference  of  a  reso- 
lution for  inquiry  as  to  amending  the  naturali- 
zation laws.^^  His  former  resolutions  had  con- 
templated  the   admission   of  aliens,   although 

'"  (130)  House  Journal,  Nineteenth  Congress,  First  Session, 
347;  (147)  House  Journal.  Nineteenth  Congress,  Second  Session, 
87. 

^^  Memoirs,   \'II,   301. 

-"December  11,   1827.  -'  December  20,   1827. 


178     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

they  had  omitted  to  make  declaration  of  inten- 
tion. The  instructions  mentioned  had  now 
provided  for  the  consideration  of  a  part  of  that 
subject.  Weems'  motion  directed  the  inquiry 
into  the  expediency  "of  so  harmonizing  the 
several  conflicting  laws"  on  the  subject  of  nat- 
uralization "that  persons  heretofore  or  here- 
after applying  to  become  citizens  of  the  United 
States,"  upon  making  the  required  proofs  of 
five  years'  previous  residence,  should,  two  years 
thereafter,  be  deemed  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  and,  upon  taking  the  oath  of  allegiance 
and  paying  the  legal  costs,  should  be  entitled  to 
receive  certificates  of  naturalization.^^  This 
seems  to  involve  giving  the  rights  of  citizen- 
ship without  the  requirement  of  an  oath  of 
allegiance,  and  without  the  expense  involved 
in  procuring  a  certificate.  Perhaps  it  was 
thought  that  the  oath  need  not  be  required, 
nor  would  a  certificate  be  necessary  while  the 
new  citizen  remained  in  the  United  States. 
If,  however,  he  wished  the  certificate  for  any 
purpose,  let  him  take  the  oath  of  allegiance 
and  pay  for  the  certificate.  The  oath  of  alle- 
giance would  thus  become  merely  a  special 
pledge  of  allegiance  already  due. 

A  little  later,^^  Buchanan  reported  from  the 
Judiciary  Committee  a  bill  to  amend  the  nat- 

--(168)   House  Journal,  Twentieth  Congress,   First   Session,   76. 
"•■'  January   30,    1828. 


ACT  OF  i824  179 

uralization  acts.  In  a  statement  to  the  House 
concerning  the  matter,  he  said  that  an  ahen 
must  prove  five  years'  residence  in  the  United 
States  by  disinterested  testimony,  and  must 
exhibit  a  certificate  that  he  had  declared  his 
intention  two  years  before  he  made  applica- 
tion to  become  a  citizen.  Neither  of  those 
provisions  was  to  be  interfered  with.  A  cer- 
tificate of  registry  before  a  court  was  also  re- 
quired as  the  only  legal  evidence  of  the  time 
of  arrival  in  the  United  States.  An  alien  who 
had  lived  in  the  United  States  ten  years  must 
reside  therein  five  years  longer,  if  he  had  neg- 
lected to  register  his  arrival.  Such  neglect 
was  common,  indeed  almost  universal.  The 
law  was  either  unknown  by  them  or  was  neg- 
lected. Some  courts  carried  out  the  require- 
ment of  the  law,  while  others  did  not  do  so. 
In  1824  Congress  had  made  certificates  of  nat- 
uralization good  without  their  reciting  the 
fact  of  registry.  The  committee  thought  that 
it  would  simplify  the  law  to  dispense  with  the 
registry.  Sec.  2  was  to  provide  for  another 
class  of  cases.  Aliens  who  had  arrived  since 
the  passage  of  the  act  of  1802  must  show  a 
certificate  of  declaration  of  intention  made  two 
years  before  their  application  for  admission. 
The  committee  thought  that  this  might  be 
dispensed    with,    if   they    showed    continuous 


l8o     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

residence  in  the  United  States  from  before 
June  i8,  1812.  This  would  require  proof  of 
constant  residence  for  nearly  sixteen  years, 
and  accorded  strictly  with  former  precedents. 
Similar  provisions  had  been  inserted  in  the 
law  in  1802  and  in  1804,  but  none  since  then 
for  twenty-four  years.  In  thus  representing 
the  matter,  Buchanan  ignored  the  fact  that 
the  chief  object  of  the  former  provisions  was 
to  mitigate  special  hardships  arising  from 
changes  made  in  the  laws.  The  bill  passed 
both  houses  without  any  amendment, ^^  and 
became  a  law  May  24,  1828.^^ 

In  1835  the  House  had  before  it  a  memorial 
of  sundry  citizens  of  New  York  state  praying 
that  the  naturalization  law  be  so  amended 
that  thereafter  no  declaration  of  intention 
should  be  required,  but  that  aliens  should  be 
fully  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  of  citizen- 
ship, if  they  proved  two  years'  residence  in 
the  United  States.  The  Judiciary  Committee, 
to  which  this  was  referred,  was  soon  there- 
after discharged  from  further  consideration  of 
it,  and  the  petition  was  laid  on  the  table. ^^ 

^*  In  the  House  a  paper  containing  amendments  that  he  in- 
tended to  propose  to  the  bill  was  submitted  by  Verplank  (N.  Y.) 
and  referred  to  the  committee  of  the  whole  in  charge  of  the  bill. 
This  was  on   February    1 5. 

-'  (168)  House  Journal,  Twentieth  Congress,  First  Session, 
233,  662,  670,  677,  875;  (162)  Senate  Journal,  Twentieth  Con- 
gress, First  Session,  352,  353,  427,  484;  Register  of  Debates, 
Twentieth    Congress,    First    Session,    2555. 

^*  (270)  House  Journal,  Twenty-third  Congress,  Second  Ses- 
sion,  307,  358. 


ACT  OF  1824  181 

In  the  early  thirties  the  House  Judiciary- 
Committee  was  three  times  instructed  to  in- 
quire into  the  expediency  of  putting  into  a 
single  act  all  of  the  naturalization  provisions 
then  in  force.  Twice  these  instructions  in- 
cluded also  the  question  of  revising  the  laws. 
A  bill  was  reported  in  February,  1832,  making 
further  provision  for  the  naturalization  of 
aliens.^^  Nothing  came  of  any  of  these  meas- 
ures. 

Several  measures  giving  or  seeking  to  give 
additional  civil  rights  to  aliens  may  be  noticed 
here.  One  of  them  was  passed  in  1832,  as 
the  result  of  an  inquiry  relative  to  amending 
the  patent  law  "so  as  to  place  aliens  who  have 
applied  to  become  citizens  on  an  equal  foot- 
ing with  citizens,  or  aliens  who  have  resided 
two  years  in  the  United  States."  ^^  Taylor,  who 
reported  the  bill,  said  that  the  Patent  Act  of 
1790  gave  aliens  the  same  privileges  as  citi- 
zens; that  of  1793  had  limited  the  privileges 
to  citizens;  that  of  1800  had  extended  them 
to  aliens  two  years  in  the  United  States,  who 
made  oath  that  their  invention  had  not  been 
made  anywhere   before.     At  least   seventeen 

"■^  (205) /^c.  «V.,  Twenty-first  Congress,  Second  Session,  60,  171; 
(215)  Ibid.y  Twenty-second  Congress,  First  Session,  57,  317;  {2^,2) 
Ibid.,  Twenty-second    Congress,    Second    Session,    48. 

28  (205)  ibid.,  Twenty-first  Congress,  Second  Session,  258; 
(^1$)  ibid..  Twenty-second  Congress,  First  Session,  158,  177,  1145, 
1148,    1187. 


i82     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

acts  had  been  passed  since,  dispensing  with 
the  two  years'  residence,  and  requiring  only 
actual  residence  at  the  time  of  the  application 
for  a  patent.  The  bill  in  hand  was  on  the  prin- 
ciple of  those  seventeen  acts.  It  required 
residence  in  the  United  States,  declaration  of 
intention  to  become  a  citizen,  and  the  oath 
of  the  act  of  1800.^^  Besides  the  points  men- 
tioned by  Taylor,  the  act  provided  that  rights 
granted  under  it  should  lapse,  if  the  invention 
were  not  in  use  within  one  year  and  continu- 
ously thereafter,  and  also  in  case  the  inventor 
failed  to  become  a  citizen  at  the  earliest  legal 
period. ^"^  In  1837  there  was  a  proposal  to 
amend  the  laws  in  relation  to  imprisonment 
for  debt  so  as  to  place  alien  plaintiffs  on  the 
same  footing  as  citizens  as  to  legal  remedies. ^^ 
In  1840  the  question  of  granting  letters  tes- 
tamentary and  administrative  to  aliens  in  the 
District  of  Columbia  was  referred  to  the 
House  Judiciary  Committee. ^^  The  New  York 
Legislature  in  1845  passed  an  act  to  allow 
John  Horsley  Palmer,  president  of  the  Bank 
of   England,   to  hold   real   estate. ^^     He   was 

2*  12   Register   of   Debates,    Twenty-first    Congress,    Second    Ses- 
sion,   1500. 

2"  Statutes  at  Large,    IV,    577. 

"^  (300)    House   Journal,    Twenty-fourth    Congress,    Second   Ses- 
sion, 320. 

*2  (362)  ibid..    Twenty-sixth    Congress,    First    Session,    966. 

=*«  Niles  Register,  LXVIII,    179. 


ACT  OF  1824  183 

said  to  have  been  very  favorable  to  invest- 
ments in  America,  but  of  course  he  had  no  in- 
tention of  becoming  even  an  aHen  resident. 
Whether  he  could  by  the  law  of  a  western 
state  have  gained  the  right  to  purchase  fed- 
eral land  therein,  would  be  an  interesting 
question. 


CHAPTER  XI 

THE  BEGINNINGS   OF  NATIVE  AMERICANISM 

There  are  no  reliable  statistics  of  immi- 
gration before  1820.  The  arrivals  during 
Washington's  administration  were  chiefly- 
English  and  French.  Transportation  rates 
were  high,  and  were  kept  up  by  legislation 
limiting  the  number  of  passengers  to  two  per 
ton  of  the  ship's  capacity.  The  immigrant 
was  necessarily  a  person  of  some  means,  and 
opposition  to  him  was  from  a  political,  not  an 
economic,  point  of  view.  The  actual  influence 
of  the  French  Revolution  upon  immigration 
was  very  great,  and  its  anticipated  influence 
w^as  much  greater.  With  the  advent  of  the 
Napoleonic  period  most  of  the  immigration 
ceased.  It  began  again  in  greater  numbers,  and 
from  other  countries  also,  when  peace  re- 
turned to  Europe.  We  have  seen  that  the  in- 
clination in  America  generally  was  for  some 
time  thereafter  in  favor  of  it.  Every  succeed- 
ing period  of  economic  depression,  however, 
produced  a  violent  reaction  against  it. 

The  immigration  during  each  of  the  two 
decades  ending  in  1820  and  1830  was  about 
I  per  cent,  of  the  total  population  at  the  end 
184 


BEGINNINGS  OF  NATIVE  AMERICANISM     185 

of  the  decade.  During  the  next  decade  it 
reached  y/i  per  cent,  of  the  population  in 
1840.  This  percentage  was  a  httle  more  than 
doubled  during  the  next  decade,  and  for  suc- 
ceeding periods  it  has  been  8,  6,  6,  and  8  per 
cent.  The  population,  the  base  of  these  per- 
centages, increased  quite  uniformly  by  one- 
third  during  all  except  the  later  periods. 

Niles  Register,  during  1816,  made  frequent 
mention  of  the  continuing  immigration.  Dur- 
ing the  following  winter  immigration  was 
''powerful"  and  would  increase.^  In  Septem- 
ber, 1817,  an  article  favoring  immigration  es- 
timated the  average  at  ten  thousand  per  year. 
That  year  it  would  be  thirty  thousand.^  The 
arrivals  for  one  week  in  1819  were  given  as 
1,414.  Then  came  the  first  note  of  disap- 
proval, as  follows :  "The  time  has  been  when 
we  were  pleased  to  see  the  progress  of  emi- 
gration, it  is  now  painful  to  observe  it,  because 
of  the  want  of  employment  for  our  own  peo- 
ple." ^  A  few  weeks  later  ^  the  swelling  tide 
of  foreigners  had  aroused  greater  apprehen- 
sions, and  the  first  fears  of  foreign  paupers 
were  expressed.  "We  have  always  until  just 
now  greeted  the  stranger  on  his  arrival  here 
with  pleasure."  There  had  been  room  for  all, 

^  Niles  Register,  XI,  359.  ^  Ibid.,   July   31,    1819. 

2  Ibid.,    Xlir,    35.  *  September    18,    1819. 


i86     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

but  the  population  in  the  maritime  districts, 
and  in  some  parts  of  the  interior,  seemed  too 
dense.  The  western  country  was  overstocked 
by  the  domestic  emigration.  A  good  many 
from  England,  disappointed  in  finding  employ- 
ment, were  on  their  way  home. 

It  is  reported,  that  to  relieve  themselves  of  their  pau- 
pers, many  such  will  be  sent  to  the  United  States  by  the 
church  wardens,  etc.,  of  England !  It  will  therefore  become 
the  state  authorities  to  be  careful  to  take  the  proper  securi- 
ties of  those  who  bring  passengers,  that  they  will  not 
become  chargeable  on  the  public. 

Probably  not  fewer  than  four  thousand  per- 
sons had  arrived  in  two  weeks,  and  perhaps 
a  thousand  more  in  a  month  by  way  of  Canada. 
The  writer  felt  sure  that  forty  thousand  was 
more  than  had  ever  arrived  in  any  one  year, 
and  that  never  had  so  many  come  any  former 
year  as  that  year.  Yet,  he  said,  the  New  York 
Gazette  spoke  of  an  estimate  by  a  gentleman 
of  500,000  in  five  years  as  what  the  emigra- 
tion would  amount  to.'  A  week  later  it  was 
said  that  perhaps  three  thousand  had  arrived 
the  past  week.  This  number  was  termed 
"enormous."  ^ 

In  1821  the  editor  thought:  "It  is  not  prob- 
able that  20,000  persons  ever  emigrated  to  the 
United  States   in  any  one  year."''     In   1822 

s  Niles  Register,    XVII,   38. 

«  Jbid..   63.  •  Ibid.,    XX,    193. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  NATIVE  AMERICANISM     187 

many  more  had  arrived  than  during  the  last 
year.  "They  appeared  to  be  substantial  peo- 
ple." *  At  the  close  of  the  year  the  arrivals 
had  been  greatly  overestimated.  They  ap- 
peared, from  the  official  statement  laid  before 
Congress,  to  have  been  only  8,482  the  past 
year.  Also  this  number  included  citizens  of 
the  United  States  returning  from  foreign 
ports,  but  did  not  include  those  arriving  by 
v^ay  of  the  St.  Lawrence.*^  Late  in  1823  Niles 
ventured  the  opinion  that  the  United  States 
in  1821  and  1822  "gained  less  than  6,000  per- 
sons from  foreign  places."  ^^  The  same  year 
he  noted  that  tw^enty-six  paupers  had  been 
sent  over  by  a  parish  in  Sussex,  which  had 
paid  their  passage  and  given  them  some 
money.^^  In  1827  it  was  noted  that  unusual 
numbers  were  arriving,  of  classes  "mostly  not 
such  as  we  would  generally  prefer."  ^^  A  year 
later  a  large  number  of  English  families  had 
arrived  lately  at  the  expense  of  their  parishes. 
The  significant  comment  followed :  "there  is 
room  enough  for  the  poor  people  and  our- 
selves." ^^ 

By  the   summer  of   1831    the   sentiment  of 
sympathy  for  paupers  was  fast  going.     Niles 

^  Ibid.,  XXII,   155.  ^  Ibid.,  XXllI,   305. 

^^  Ibid.,   XXV,   232.      He  probably  means  each  year. 
^^  Ibid.,  XXIV,   113. 
^■■' Ibid.,  XXXII,  310.  ^--^  Ibid.,    XXXIV,   411. 


l88     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

indorsed  a  Massachusetts  law  to  allow  no 
alien  to  land  till  the  master  of  the  vessel  on 
which  he  came  had  paid  the  city  five  dollars. 
He  would  not  check  desirable  immigration 
but  concluded  that  the  country  was  "wretched- 
ly imposed  upon."  The  British  were  deluging 
their  cities  with  paupers,  and  this  required  a 
strong  corrective.^^  Again,  immigration  was 
very  large.  "The  greater  number  of  them  are 
men  of  substance  and  character."  "Some  car- 
goes of  English  paupers  are  expected."  ^'^  A 
little  later  there  is  a  statement  that  all  the 
cities  are  severely  taxed  to  care  for  foreign 
paupers.  Nearly  half  of  the  inmates  of  the 
New  York  almshouse  were  foreigners.  Strong 
regulations  should  be  adopted.  "Let  those 
who  suck  the  orange  not  throw  the  peel  at 
us."  ^^  Again  (September  15,  1832),  there 
was  much  greater  immigration  than  ever  be- 
fore— 100,000  or  more  already  that  year.  Very 
many  Germans  were  arriving  at  Philadelphia 
and  Baltimore.  They  were  hardy,  healthy, 
and  industrious,  and  nearly  all  of  them  had 
the  means  of  going  to  the  interior.  They 
would  soon  be  among  their  most  valuable  citi- 
zens. They  differed  much  from  the  loads  of 
English   paupers    "shoveled    upon    us."   They 

1*  Loc,  cit.,  XL,  74,  130. 

^^  Ibid.,    273;    June    i8,    1831.  ^^  Ibid.,    XLI,    356. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  NATIVE  AMERICANISM     189 

would  work  and  support  themselves,  and  not 
fill  the  poorhouses.^^ 

In  1833  there  appeared  a  memorial  of  the 
mayor  and  council  of  Baltimore  to  the  general 
assembly,  calling  for  relief  from  the  influx 
of  foreign  paupers.  All  reports  of  the  health 
ofBcers  since  1827  had  called  attention  to  the 
destitute  and  diseased  condition  of  emigrants. 
They  were  filling  the  almshouse,  and  swarms 
of  foreign  beggars  were  infesting  the  streets. 
While  they  would  extend  the  right  hand  to  every 
immigrant  able  and  willing  to  support  himself, 
they  requested  laws  to  protect  them  from 
others. ^^  A  little  later  Niles  noted  that  a  late 
law  "may  abate  this  nuisance."  An  unprece- 
dented number  of  immigrants  from  Germany 
were  expected,  sober  and  industrious,  exactly 
the  kind  needed. ^^  Again  (June  8,  1833),  ^"''" 
migrants  were  pouring  in  from  Ireland,  Eng- 
land, Scotland,  and  Wales;  but  the  greater 
number,  most  probably,  were  from  Germany. 
Many  were  of  the  best  productive  classes, 
while  others  were  mere  day  laborers.  They 
were  patient  and  industrious,  and  exceedingly 
economical.^'^ 

As  the  country  was  passing  through  a 
most  prosperous  period,  Niles  recovered  from 
his  fears.     In  1833,  he  wrote: 

^ /btrf.,   XLIII,  40.  ^«  Ibid.,    XLIV,    131. 

^*  Ibid.,  391.  ""  Ibid.,   233. 


igo     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

There  can  not  be  a  want  of  it  [room]  for  some  hundred 
years  to  come;  and  for  the  sake  of  the  human  race  it  is 
earnestly  to  be  wished  that  the  United  States  of  America 
should  have  first  rank  among  the  nations  of  the  earth,  and 
remain  "  an  asylum  for  the  oppressed,"  the  hope  and  pride 
of  all  men  who  love  liberty." 

Six  months  later  there  was  "a  great  surplus 
of  labor  just  now,"  and  he  did  "not  wish  new 
importations  to  send  our  own  people  supper- 
less  to  bed."  ^^  "We  regret  to  see  that  many- 
emigrants  are  arriving  from  Europe 
We  are  already  much  overstocked  with  la- 
borers." Foreign  paupers  were  discharged 
on  their  shores.  It  seemed  reasonable  to  ex- 
pect that  the  United  States  and  Canada  would 
receive  one  hundred  thousand  immigrants  in 
1834.  Many  of  the  Germans  were  well  pro- 
vided for,  "though  we  had  several  shipments 
of  disgusting  paupers  or  beggars  from  Ger- 
many, a  year  or  two  ago,"  ^^ 

The  foregoing  ideas  and  extracts  from  one 
of  the  most  intelligently  edited  papers  cast 
much  light  upon  the  problem  of  immigration. 
They  exhibit  influences  and  tendencies  the 
existence  of  which  at  that  time  has  not  been 
generally  recognized.  In  connection  with 
them  the  rapid  increase  of  immigration  there- 
after,  the  changes   in  its  character,   and  the 

21  Loc.  cit.,  XLV,  2, 

^- Ibid.,   XLVI.    I,  -■■'Ibid.,  218,  244,  398. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  NATIVE  AMERICANISM     iQi 

deterioration  in  its  quality  go  far  to  explain  the 
outbreak  of  Native-Americanism  and  Knovv- 
Nothingism,  whose  influence  upon  naturaliza- 
tion I  am  about  to  trace. 

The  Native  American  Association  or- 
ganized on  a  distinctly  political  basis  at  a 
meeting  held  in  Washington  on  July  ii,  1837, 
in  the  midst  of  the  panic  conditions  of  that 
year.  The  meeting  was  described  as  large, 
and  composed  of  Native  Americans  of  all 
parties.  An  address  set  forth  the  necessity 
for  a  repeal  of  the  naturalization  law,  to  save 
their  institutions  from  the  corruption  of 
foreign  countries  and  themselves  from  the  loss 
of  their  birthright.  A  preamble  and  constitu- 
tion were  unanimously  adopted.  The  former 
declared  that  all  governments  were  bound  by 
the  principles  of  national  preservation  to 
govern  by  their  own  citizens.  The  republican 
form  of  government  of  the  United  States  was 
believed  to  be  an  object  of  fear  and  dislike  to 
the  advocates  of  monarchy  in  Europe.  The 
United  States  were  imperatively  called  upon 
to  administer  their  peculiar  system  free  from 
all  foreig'n  influence.  By  admitting  strangers 
they  were  weakening  the  attachments  of  na- 
tives, and  could  gain  only  a  sordid  allegiance 
from  foreigners.  They  were  maintaining  in 
its    most    extended     form    the    right    of    the 


192     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

native-born  American.  He  only  should  exer- 
cise the  duties  of  government,  from  the  high- 
est to  the  lowest  post.  To  that  end  they  said: 
"We  shall  advocate  the  entire  repeal  of  the 
naturalization  law  by  congress."  As  the  con- 
stitution forbade  ex  post  facto  action,  they 
sought  only  prospective  action.  They  solemn- 
ly believed  that  Americans  should  unite  as 
brothers.  A  critical  period  had  been  reached, 
when  every  wind  blew  ragged  paupers  to  their 
cities,  and  brought  elements  of  degradation 
and  disorder.  A  great  moral  revolution  was 
to  be  fought. 

The  Constitution  bound  members  to  co- 
operate to  procure  the  repeal  of  the  naturaliza- 
tion laws  by  all  lawful  means;  not  to  hold 
guiltless  the  man  who  should  place  foreigners 
in  of^ce ;  and  declared  that  they  would  be  a 
separate  and  independent  party  of  Native 
Americans,  and  would  not  connect  themselves 
to  any  religious  sect  or  denomination.  Reso- 
lutions were  adopted  to  the  ef¥ect  that  they 
would  seek  to  support  a  Native  American 
press  in  Washington,  and  would  prepare  an 
appeal  to  the  Native  Americans  of  the  United 
States. 

At  a  later  meeting  ^"*  a  memorial  to  Con- 
gress was  unanimously  adopted.     It  was  de- 

2*  December  26,   1837. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  NATIVE  AMERICANISM     I93 

scribed  as  the  memorial  of  more  than  nine 
hundred  citizens  of  the  United  States  associa- 
ted at  Washington  under  the  name  of  the  Na- 
tive American  Association.  It  urged  that  the 
power  to  naturahze  was  given  to  Congress  to 
add  to  the  physical  strength  of  the  United 
States,  attract  skilled  workmen,  and  draw 
capital  thither.  It  had  not  been  anticipated 
that  it  would  be  used  so  as  to  place  "a  large 
portion  of  the  power  of  this  government  in 
the  hands  of  adventurers  of  every  clime,"  be- 
fore they  learned  the  language,  or  the  first 
principles  of  a  republican  government.  The 
very  short  term  of  five  years  would  not  qualify 
a  foreigner  for  citizenship.  There  was  mani- 
fold injustice  and  soon  to  be  serious  danger  in 
giving  them  such  privileges.  Already  many 
of  the  most  important  elections  had  been 
swayed  and  decided  by  the  votes  of  foreigners, 
notoriously  ignorant,  used  by  artful  dema- 
gogues. Rome  had  lost  her  liberties  by  ad- 
mitting large  bands  of  foreigners,  and  England 
had  preserved  hers  by  excluding  them.  They 
humbly  believed  that  the  fit  time  had  arrived 
when  the  laws  should  be  carefully  revised  and 
amended,  or  altogether  repealed. 

A  strong  plea  was  made  against  pauper  and 
criminal  immigrants.  The  governments  of 
Europe,   seeking  to   free   themselves   from   a 


194     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

vast  increase  of  pauperism  and  crime,  had 
chosen  the  free  and  happy  American  land  for 
their  criminal  and  burdensome  classes.  Any 
wish  to  shut  doors  against  reputable  immi- 
grants was  disclaimed.  They  desired  the  land 
to  continue  for  all  time,  in  a  fair  and  proper 
sense,  "an  asylum  for  the  oppressed  of  all  na- 
tions." To  worthy  foreigners  they  would  say: 
"Come  to  us  and  be  at  rest;"  mingle  not  in 
politics ;  be  content  to  be  governed,  and  seek 
not  to  govern  those  who  entertain  you  and 
give  you  shelter  and  protection ;  exercise  free- 
ly every  religious  and  social  right,  but  do  not 
expect  political  privileges,  at  least  until  length 
of  residence  has  guaranteed  you  to  be  fully 
acquainted  with  the  nature  and  extent  of  the 
obligations  of  American  citizens. 

In  conclusion  they  prayed  Congress  to  re- 
peal the  naturalization  laws,  or  so  modify  them 
as  best  to  secure  to  native  citizens  the  full  en- 
joyment of  the  privileges  and  rights  they  were 
entitled  to  under  the  Constitution;  and  also  to 
make  ample  provision  for  the  protection  of 
the  United  States  from  any  future  influx  of 
foreign  paupers  and  convicts. 

Patton,  who  presented  the  memorial,^' 
moved  its  reference  to  a  select  committee  and 
accepted  instructions  to  the  committee,  moved 

25  January  8,    1838. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  NATIVE  AMERICANISM     IQS 

by  Lincoln,  to  consider  the  expediency  of 
revising  and  amending  the  laws  so  as  to  re- 
quire a  longer  term  of  residence  in  the  United 
States  previous  to  the  admission  of  foreigners 
to  citizenship,  and  greater  checks  and  securi- 
ties against  frauds  in  the  means  and  process  of 
obtaining  naturalization ;  also  legislation  re- 
garding vagrants  and  paupers  sent  to  the 
United  States.  Debate  arose  on  the  question 
of  reference,  the  opposition  seeking  to  send 
it  to  the  Committee  on  Judiciary ;  and  it  was 
laid  on  the  table  to  take  its  turn  under  the 
rules. ^^^  Hopeless,  apparently,  of  securing  a 
select  committee,  although  soon  after  a  less 
imposing  memorial  was  referred  to  one, 
Lincoln  at  length  moved  to  instruct  the  Ju- 
diciary Committee  as  above,  and  it  was  done."^ 
A  memorial  of  over  five  hundred  citizens 
of  two  towns  of  Massachusetts  urged  an  in- 
quiry to  solve  four  questions:  (i)  whether 
there  were  designs  against  the  liberties  of  the 
country  by  means  of  an  influx  of  foreign  im- 
migration;  (2)  whether  the  character  of  the 
immigration  did  not  augur  a  vast  increase  of 
pauperism  and  crime  in  the  land;  (3)  whether 
oaths  of  allegiance  were  not  binding  some  to 

-"  (320)  House  Journal,  Twenty-fifth  Congress,  Second  Session, 
235;  (325)  House  Executive  Documents,  Twenty-fifth  Congress, 
Second    Session,    V,    No.    98. 

-"  (320)  House  Journal.  Twenty-fifth  Congress,  Second  Ses- 
sion,  465. 


196     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

a  foreign  despotic  prince,  and  whether  such 
had  equal  claims  upon  the  government  with 
dutiful  subjects,  or  were  entitled  to  the  con- 
fidence of  the  nation ;  (4)  whether  there  was 
not  a  foreign  conspiracy  against  the  govern- 
ment, and  measures  and  plans  working  for  its 
execution.  They  entreated  that  a  faithful  in- 
vestigation be  made  and  action  taken. ^* 

A  few  weeks  later  the  subject  was  again 
brought  before  Congress  in  the  memorial  of 
ninety-seven  electors  of  Washington  County,  N. 
Y.,  praying  a  revision  of  the  laws  regulating  the 
naturalization  of  foreigners.  It  declared  that 
the  easy  access  of  foreigners  of  doubtful 
morals  and  hostile  political  principles  to  the 
elective  franchise  was  a  source  of  danger  to 
the  country's  civil  and  religious  liberties.  The 
Constitution  had  not  contemplated  a  majority 
hostile  to  its  principles.  Since  naturalization 
laws  had  been  thought  to  be  necessary,  let 
them  be  adequate  to  their  defense.  They  had 
deep  concern  at  the  influx  of  Catholics,  but 
sought  legislative  defense  only  against  the 
political  principles  interwoven  with  their 
religion.  They  desired  inquiry  as  to  whether 
a  plan  was  not  in  operation  for  the  subversion 
of  their  liberties  by  gaining  American  suf- 
frage for  Catholics  from  Europe;  and  whether 

-^  House  Executive  Documents,  Twenty-fifth  Congress,  Sec- 
ond   Session,    IT,   No.    70. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  NATIVE  AMERICANISM     i97 

an  amendment  of  the  naturalization  laws 
could  more  fully  secure  American  institu- 
tions, liberties,  etc.,  against  the  danger  of  sub- 
version by  foreign  influence,  and  despotic  ty- 
rannical principles  even  under  the  cloak  of 
religion.  Here  were  Know-Nothing  princi- 
ples in  full  bloom,  with  foreigners  and  Catho- 
lics both  to  be  feared.  This  time  reference 
to  a  special  committee  was  secured  without 
any  apparent  opposition,  and,  later,  various 
other  papers,  including  that  of  the  Native 
American  Association,  were  referred  to  the 
same  committee.^'* 

Among  these  later  papers  was  a  memorial 
from  citizens  of  New  York  City.  The  great 
and  rapidly  increasing  influx  of  foreigners,  the 
character  and  condition  of  a  large  proportion 
of  them,  the  indiscriminate  freedom  by  which 
suffrage  was  given  them,  they  urged,  were 
evils  which  wrongfully  deprived  "us"  of  "our" 
native  rights,  and  fearfully  tended  to  the  de- 
struction of  their  government  and  their  liber- 
ties. They  referred  to  "grievous  frauds"  in 
the  execution  of  the  Naturalization  Law,  and 
to  paupers  and  criminals  oppressing  and  de- 

""  The  committee  consisted  of  Russell  (N.  Y.),  Lincoln  (Mass.), 
Beatty  (Ky.),  Casey  (111.),  and  Jackson  (Mass.).  Jackson  soon 
after  was  excused,  and  Rliett  (S.  C.)  took  his  place.  (320)  House 
Journal,  Twenty-fifth  Congress,  Second  Session,  576,  6:4;  (327) 
House  Executive  Documents,  Twenty-fifth  Congress,  Second  Ses- 
sion,   VII,    No.    154. 


198     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

moralizing.  The  time  for  naturalization  was 
quite  too  short.  They  earnestly  prayed  an 
amendment  requiring  twenty-one  years'  resi- 
dence of  all  aliens  not  already  having  declared 
intentions,  before  they  should  be  entitled  to 
the  suffrage.  If  guilty  of  crime  that  would 
disqualify  a  native,  even  that  residence  should 
not  qualify  them.  The  power  to  grant  cer- 
tificates of  naturalization  should  be  confined 
to  Congress,  the  Supreme  Court,  and  the  su- 
perior courts  of  the  states.^"  This  was,  per- 
haps, the  first  mention  of  the  twenty-one 
years'  residence  period  in  a  document  that 
reached  Congress. 

Some  time  before  this  agitation  began,  the 
report  of  a  legislative  committee  of  Louisiana 
had  shown  a  50  per  cent,  increase  of  patients 
in  the  charity  hospital  of  New  Orleans  coin- 
cident with  unprecedented  good  health  in  the 
city.  Of  nearly  six  thousand  inmates,  nearly 
70  per  cent,  had  been  aliens.  The  Baltbnorc 
American  had  reported  that  among  the  in- 
mates of  the  almshouses  of  Boston,  New  York, 
Philadelphia,  and  Baltimore,  in  all  over  ten 
thousand,  there  were  10  per  cent,  more 
foreigners  than  Americans.  These  reports  re- 
lated to  the  year  1835.  In  1837  the  mayor  of 
New  York,   allowed  by  state  law  to  collect 

30  (329)  House  Executive  Documents,  Twenty-fifth  Congress, 
Second  Session,   IX,   No.   313. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  NATIVE  AMERICANISM     I99 

from  one  to  ten  dollars  as  commutation 
money  in  place  of  taking  from  masters  of 
vessels  an  indemnity  bond  to  secure  the  city 
from  foreign  paupers,  decided  to  collect  ten 
dollars  per  passenger  instead  of  the  one  dollar 
before  collected, ^^ 

The  report  of  the  Select  Committee  on 
Foreign  Paupers  and  Naturalization  laws  ^* 
contained  ii6  pages,  and  included  a  report 
from  the  secretary  of  state  and  one  from  the 
secretary  of  the  treasury.  It  referred  to  simul- 
taneous appeals  to  Congress  from  different 
sections  to  save  the  country  from  the  blight- 
ing influence  of  a  pauper,  vagrant,  and  male- 
factor population  sent  over  at  the  expense  of 
foreign  governments,  arriving  destitute,  and 
becoming  at  once  burdensome.  One-half  of 
the  pauper  population  of  the  United  States  and 
three-fourths  of  the  convicts  in  Sing  Sing  were 
foreign.  The  foreign  population  of  the  United 
States  was  about  one  in  nineteen.  Foreign  in- 
fluence was  most  dangerous  to  governments, 
and  the  influence  of  the  Old  World  monarchies 
was  especially  so  to  the  United  States.  The 
idea  that  foreigners  on  their  arrival  were 
entitled  to  the  privileges  of  citizenship  was  not 
well  founded.  Some  were  worthy,  but  no  rule 
of  discrimination    could  be    adopted    without 

^^  Niles  Register,  XLIX,  62,  69;   LII,  250. 
32  July  2,    1838. 


20O     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

creating  invidious  distinctions.     The  commit- 
tee concluded    that    the    term    of  probation 

should  be  extended  from  five  years  to 

years.  Owing  to  great  complaint  of  frauds  in 
the  lower  courts,  and  in  order  to  preserve 
uniformity  in  the  execution  of  the  laws,  natu- 
ralization should  be  confined  to  the  courts  of 
the  United  States  or  to  the  supreme  court  in 
the  states.  Record  of  the  previous  declara- 
tion of  intention  was  also  thought  advisable. 
An  appendix  contained  reports  from  Ameri- 
can consuls  in  regard  to  the  deportation  of 
paupers  from  Europe.  Passage  from  Bremen 
was  as  low  as  sixteen  dollars.  Hamburg  had 
deported  condemned  criminals  to  New  York. 
Some  Irish  landholders,  where  tenants  were 
becoming  too  numerous,  had  sent  from  Dublin 
perhaps  a  hundred  a  year  for  five  or  six  years. 
From  Liverpool  and  London  it  was  reported 
that  some  parishes  sent  abroad  their  excess 
population,  always  giving  from  five  to  ten 
pounds  in  money  besides  passage  and  food. 
Convicts,  workhouse  inmates,  the  old  and  de- 
crepit, were  never  sent.  Six  hundred  were 
sent  from  Liverpool  in  1830  by  parishes,  five 
hundred  in  1832,  and  not  more  than  three 
hundred  in  any  year  since.  In  1831  complaint 
had  been  made  to  England  of  an  act  of  the 
Jamaica  government  under  which  American 


BEGINNINGS  OF  NATIVE  AMERICANISM     201 

vessels  touching  at  that  island  had  been  com- 
pelled to  carry  away  a  number  of  paupers  pro- 
portioned to  the  size  of  the  vessel. ^^ 

The  committee,  after  obtaining  permission, 
introduced  two  bills,  which  after  some  debate, 
were  sent  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on 
the  State  of  the  Union. ^^  One  member  of  the 
special  committee,  Beatty,  asked  for  time  that 
he  might  submit  a  counter  report.  He  pro- 
tested against  the  monstrous  doctrine  in  the 
report,  reviving  in  full  force  the  doctrines  of 

1798. 

Late  in  the  following  session  of  Congress, 
the  House  referred  to  the  committee  of  the 
whole  "to  which  is  committed  the  bill  re- 
ported last  session"  a  memorial  "signed,  it 
is  believed,  by  several  thousand  citizens  of 
the  state  of  Louisiana."  ^^  They  asserted 
that  hundreds  of  foreigners,  alien  to  the  ob- 
ligations they  so  readily  incurred,  were  daily 
acquiring  rights.  Both  parties,  throughout 
the  United  States,  made  constant  charge  of 
bribery  of  foreigners  in  elections  and  this 
was  imperiling  the  welfare  of  the  country. 
The  existing  facilities  for  naturalization  were 

**  (336)  House  Reports  of  Committees,  Twenty-fifth  Congress, 
Second   Session,   II,   No.   70. 

'*  (320)  House  Journal,  1207;  Congressional  Globe.  489;  July 
2,    1838. 

3^  Congressional  Globe,  Twenty-fifth  Congress,  Third  Session, 
178;   February  7,    1839. 


202     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

highly  injurious  to  the  safety  and  perpetuity 
of  free  institutions.  A  dreadful  deterioration 
of  morals  and  increase  of  crime  were  appar- 
ent within  ten  or  fifteen  years.  Seven  hun- 
dred convicts  had  been  sent  out  from  one 
place.  The  whole  country  was  suffering. 
They  would  not  abridge  the  rights  of  those 
naturalized  or  who  had  declared  intentions, 
but  they  wished  the  passage  of  a  law  putting 
native-born  and  naturalized  citizens  at  least 
on  an  equal  footing.^^  They  solicited  the 
entire  repeal  of  the  naturalization  acts  then 
in  force,  and  ample  provision  for  the  protec- 
tion of  the  United  States  from  the  indiscrimi- 
nate influx  of  foreign  emigrants.  Should 
these  things  be  delayed,  ere  long  they  would 
have  to  sue  at  the  footstool  of  a  power  alien 
in  feelings,  prejudices,  and  aspirations.^"^ 

The  Twenty-Fifth  Congress  expired  with- 
out further  action  on  these  subjiects.  There 
was,  however,  a  resolution  introduced  look- 
ing to  the  exclusion  from  the  privileges  of 
citizenship  of  the  children  of  persons  who 
removed  from  the  United  States  and  took 
the  oath  of  allegiance  to  the  government  in 
which  they  resided,  until  they  should  become 

"*  This  is  doubtless  a  plea  for  twenty-one  years'  residence  be- 
fore naturalization,  and  indicates  that  the  argument  for  it  had  been 
developed. 

""  (347)  House  Executive  Documents,  Twenty-fiftli  Congress, 
Third  Session,   IV,  No.   162. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  NATIVE  AMERICANISM     203 

naturalized  like  other  foreigners.  Debate 
arose  upon  this,  and  it  was  laid  over  under 
the  rules,  not  to  appear  again. ^^ 

During  1840  much  attention  was  given  in 
and  out  of  Congress  to  the  naturalization 
question,  and  a  strong  effort  was  made  in 
both  the  Senate  and  the  House  to  repeal  the 
existing  laws.  In  the  House  easier  naturali- 
zation was  sought;  in  the  Senate,  more 
stringent  legislation.  The  matter  was  more 
quiet  the  following  year,  and  in  1842  there 
might  seem  the  indication  of  a  reaction  in 
a  proposition  debated  briefly  in  the  Senate 
to  return  to  the  two-year  requirement  of  the 
act  of  1790.  In  1843,  however,  the  twenty- 
one-year  agitation  became  distinctly  aggres- 
sive. Thereafter,  until  the  Civil  War,  it  had 
to  be  reckoned  with  continuously  as  an  im- 
portant political  factor.  Sometimes,  in  vari- 
ous eastern  states,  the  issue  involved  in  it 
dominated  all  other  issues. 

Two  letters  written  in  1840  by  the  Whig 
candidate  for  president  give  an  indication  of 
the  political  importance  already  attached  to 
the  question  of  naturalization.  The  first  was 
written  ^^  to  a  committee  in  Indiana.  It  ac- 
knowledged the  receipt  of  a  letter  mention- 

^''*  (343)  House  Journal,  Twenty-fifth  Congress,  Third  Session, 
39S;  January  28,   1839. 

3»  July  4,  1840. 


204     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

ing  a  report  prevailing  "that  I  am  averse  to 
emigrants  from  foreign  countries  being  nat- 
uralized short  of  twenty  years,"  and  declared 
that  he  had  never  ceased  to  pronounce  this 
a  calumny.  On  the  contrary,  he  had  done 
everything  in  his  power  to  facilitate  the  ac- 
quisition of  citizenship  by  those  near  him; 
and,  when  in  Congress,  to  give  them  before 
their  naturalization  the  same  privileges  in 
taking  up  and  holding  public  lands  as  na- 
tives.**' In  the  other  letter  he  wrote  to  a 
Philadelphian : 

Through  the  whole  course  of  my  poHtical  Hfe,  I  am 
satisfied,  that  no  sentence  ever  fell  from  my  lips,  which 
could  be  construed  into  an  unfriendly  feeling  to  the 
Europeans  who  have  emigrated  hither,  to  enjoy  the  advan- 
tages which  our  free  institutions  afford,  or  a  wish  to 
extend  the  period,  which  is  fixed  by  the  existing  laws,  for 
their  full  admission  to  the  rights  of  citizenship." 

A  petition  from  Louisiana,  in  form  at 
least  the  same  as  that  before  the  House  in 
the  previous  Congress,  was  referred  to  the 
Senate  Judiciary  Committee  early  in  1840.^^ 
It  sought  the  entire  repeal  of  the  naturaliza- 
tion laws,  and  new  stringent  legislation  on 
the  subject.  The  committee  reported  that 
the  prayer  of  the  petitioners  ought  not  to  be 

<»  Niles  Register,  LVIII,  397. 

*^  North  Anterican  Review,  LII,   220;  January,    1841. 

**  January  7. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  NATIVE  AMERICANISM     205 

granted.'*^  Two  other  petitions  for  the  re- 
peal of  the  naturaHzation  laws,  one  of  these 
from  citizens  of  Louisiana  and  the  other,  pre- 
sented by  Clay,  from  citizens  of  the  United 
States  engaged  in  the  navigation  of  the  west- 
ern waters,  were  laid  on  the  table.  The  Sen- 
ate adopted  the  report  of  its  committee.^* 

At  the  same  session  the  Senate  passed  a 
joint  resolution  for  the  printing  of  all  the  natu- 
ralization laws  "as  soon  as  practicable,"  but  it 
seems  not  to  have  passed  the  House.^'^  Mean- 
while, in  the  House,  Hand  (N.  Y.)  had  ob- 
tained leave  and  introduced  a  bill  to  estab- 
lish a  uniform  rule  of  naturalization,  and  to 
repeal  all  existing  acts  on  that  subject.  A 
controversy  ensued  as  to  its  reference,  but 
it  went  to  the  Judiciary  Committee  and  re- 
mained there. •^^  Early  in  the  following  session 
Hand  again  got  leave  and  presented  a  simi- 
lar bill.  This  time  he  pressed  the  question  of 
reference  to  a  vote,  and  lost  by  a  narrow  ma- 
jority. He  wished  to  send  it  to  the  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole  House  on  the  State  of  the 
Union,   where   thus   early   in   the   session   he 

**  February  12,  1840. 

**  February  i8,  1840.  (353)  Senate  Journal.  Twenty-sixth 
Congress,  First  Session,  81,  174,  179,  187,  208;  (340)  Senate 
Documents,    Twenty-fifth    Congress,    Third    Session,    III,    No.    246. 

**  (353)  Senate  Journal,  Twenty-sixth  Congress,  First  Session, 
330.  3S7,  363. 

*'  (362)  House  Journal,  Twenty-sixth  Congress,  First  Session, 
556,  587.     See  also  Congressional  Globe. 


2o6     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

might  expect  to  secure  discussion  upon  it. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  was  argued  that  so  im- 
portant a  subject  should  go  to  the  Judiciary 
Committee.  The  vote  was  96  to  90.  Hand 
received  practically  the  solid  support  of  the 
Democratic  party.  John  Quincy  Adams 
wrote  in  his  diary  at  the  time  that  it  was  the 
second  vote  in  which  a  sufficient  number  of 
the  Kinderhook  time-servers  had  given  way 
to  turn  the  majority.^'^  A  motion  to  recon- 
sider the  reference  was  debated  at  some 
length,  but  the  debate  is  not  reported.  It 
was  lost  by  a  vote  of  90  to  93,^^  and  the  bill 
was  left  to  be  buried  by  an  unfavorable  com- 
mittee. 

About  the  same  time  the  Legislature  of 
Missouri  passed  a  memorial  which  was  pre- 
sented in  the  House  and  referred  a  year 
later.'*^  This  memorial  referred  to  the  exist- 
ing excitement  and  discussion;  to  societies 
organized  to  procure  the  repeal  of  exist- 
ing laws  and  the  passage  of  a  law  extend- 
ing the  time  of  residence  required  for  natur- 
alization; and,  finally,  to  the  bill  introduced 
in    Congress    by    Hand    to    effect   those    pur- 

*^  ]•   Q-   Adams,  Memoirs,  X,   375. 

**  (381)  House  Journal,  Twenty-sixth  Congress,  Second  Ses- 
sion, 29,  42,  48,  59,  73.     See  also  Congressional  Globe. 

'^  This  memorial  was  approved  February  16,  1841,  and  re- 
ferred  on   January   7,    1842. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  NATIVE  AMERICANISM     207 

poses. ^*^  It  declared  that  the  objects  of  such 
societies  are  disapproved  by  the  General  As- 
sembly of  Missouri,  "as  being  illiberal,  intol- 
erant in  spirit,  intending  to  rivet  the  bondage 
of  mankind  in  the  old  world,  and  as  unwise 
in  effect,  in  repressing  emigration  to  this 
country,  and  retarding  its  population  and 
improvement."  Senators  were  instructed  and 
representatives  requested  to  oppose  the  re- 
peal of  any  law  that  provided  for  the  natur- 
alization of  aliens,  and  to  resist  all  measures 
designed  to  cause  further  delay  or  difficulty 
in  the  attainment  of  citizenship.^^  Nearly 
coincident  with  this  action  of  the  Missouri 
Legislature  was  the  adoption  by  the  Louisi- 
ana House  of  Representatives,  by  a  vote  of 
25  to  10,  of  a  resolution  requesting  that 
state's  senators  and  representatives  in  Con- 
gress to  endeavor  to  procure  a  change  in  the 
laws  to  require  twenty-one  years'  consecu- 
tive residence  in  the  United  States  for  nat- 
uralization.'^^ 

In  the  committee  of  the  whol^  in  the 
House,  during  a  debate  on  the  Treasury-Note 
Bill,  in  January.  1841.  Duncan  (Ohio)  ex- 
hibited a  bill  on  the  subject  of  naturalization 

^*  This  memorial  shows  a  complete  misconception  of  the  char- 
acter of  Hand's  bill. 

^^  (402)  House  Executive  Documents,  Twenty-seventh  Con- 
gress,   Second   Session,    IT,   No.    37. 

•2  Niles  Register,  LIX,  404. 


2o8     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

that  he  intended  to  introduce,  and  explained 
that  he  expressed  his  views  upon  it  then  lest 
he  shoukl  have  no  opportunity  to  introduce 
it.  The  object  of  the  bill  was  to  secure  to 
those  fleeing  from  despotism  the  rights  and 
privileges  that  the  ancestors  of  Americans 
secured  by  their  flight.  The  elective  fran- 
chise was  the  principal  ingredient  of  free  gov- 
ernment. He  had  ever  thought  that  the  fran- 
chise as  related  to  foreigners  was  unneces- 
sarily limited  and  trammeled.  Its  difficulty 
and  expense  were  incompatible  with  the 
nature  of  their  free  institutions.  He  had  ever 
intended  expressing  his  decided  hostility  to 
the  naturalization  laws  as  they  existed,  and 
trying  to  amend  them  in  harmony  with  the 
nature  of  their  government  and  the  spirit  of 
the  Constitution.  The  government,  at  first 
an  experiment,  had  been  trammeled  in  some 
of  its  institutions.  He  would  have  it  as  free 
as  the  experience  of  the  age  would  permit. 
There  was  no  longer  apology  for  restrictions, 
incompatible  with  their  free  institutions  and 
personal  rights,  and  originally  founded  in  a 
lack  of  confidence  in  the  people.  He  wished 
a  shorter  residence  requirement,  and  natur- 
alization with  as  little  trouble  and  expense 
as  possible.  He  would  have  the  alien  enjoy 
all   the   rights   and   privileges   of   the   native- 


BEGINNINGS  OF  NATIVE  AMERICANISM     209 

born,  not  denied  by  the  Constitution,  upon 
taking  the  oath  of  allegiance.  Jefferson  had 
thought  thus,  and  the  Democratic  party  had 
always  favored  the  least  possible  restraint 
upon  naturalization  and  upon  the  suffrage.  The 
Federalists  limited  speech,  debate,  the  press, 
and  the  franchise.  They  "throw  all  the  re- 
strictions and  embarrassments  possible  in 
the  way  of  naturalization,"  and  are  now  en- 
deavoring, in  violation  of  the  Constitution, 
to  deprive  foreigners  of  the  rights  of  citizen- 
ship. Proofs  of  his  assertion  were  the  act  of 
1798,  passed  by  the  Federalists  and  opposed 
by  the  Democrats  in  Congress  and  out;  the 
act  of  1802,  opposed  by  the  Federalists  and 
passed  by  the  Democrats  by  the  hardest  ef- 
fort. During  the  past  winter,  Hand,  a  Demo- 
crat, had  early  introduced  a  bill  to  shorten 
the  residence  requirement.  It  was  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Judiciary,  a  majority 
of  whom  were  Federalists  or  modern  Whigs, 
and  "no  power  on  earth  was  able  to  rescue 
it  from  their  hands.  It  slept  the  sleep  of 
death,"  A  similar  bill  had  been  introduced 
at  the  commencement  of  that  session,  and  a 
motion  to  refer  it  to  a  Committee  of  the 
Whole  House  on  the  State  of  the  Union 
failed  by  a  party  vote.  Reference  to  the  Ju- 
diciary Committee  carried  by  a  party  vote, 


2IO     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

"every  Federalist  in  the  House  voting  for 
it  and  the  Democracy  against  it,  and  there 
that  bill  now  is  safe  for  an  eternal  sleep." 
He  could  make  a  book  of  the  party  struggles 
on  the  subject  of  naturalization.  The  Fed- 
eralists no  longer  stopped  at  restrictions  and 
embarrassments,  but  sought  to  overthrow 
the  privilege  and  constitutional  rights  of  nat- 
uralization. They  were  seeking  to  make  the 
foreigner  a  vassal. 

Moreover,  the  country  was  overspread  by 
Native  American  associations,  whose  object 
was  shown  by  a  petition  from  Illinois.  It  de- 
clared that  time  had  "fulfilled  the  object  had 
in  view  by  our  fathers"  in  giving  Congress 
the  powder  to  naturalize  foreigners,  and  that 
"farther  admission  of  foreigners  to  a  partici- 
pation in  the  political  rights  of  native  Ameri- 
cans would  be  hurtful  to  the  interests  of  our 
country."  It  would  sooner  or  later  prove  de- 
structive to  their  republican  institutions.  At- 
tention was  asked  to  petitions  for  repealing 
naturalization  laws,  and  the  entire  repeal  of 
such  laws.  In  view  of  their  object,  these 
Federalist  associations  were  infamous.  In  an 
address  one  of  them  has  said: 

We  do  solemnly  resolve  to  oppose  the  election  or 
appointment  of  any  but  American  citizens  to  office,  and 
henceforward  use  our  united  efforts  and  unsparing  zeal  to 


BEGINNINGS  OF  NATIVE  AMERICANISM     211 

procure  such  an  alteration  in  the  naturahzation  laws  as 
shall  exclude  from  the  right  of  suffrage  all  foreigners  who 
come  into  the  country  after  such  law  has  passed. 

Duncan  declared  further  that  Federalist  op- 
position to  foreigners  was  due  to  a  preponder- 
ance of  Germans  and  Irish  among  the  immi- 
grants, and  to  the  fact  that  they  were  Demo- 
crats. The  Federalists  wished  to  abolish  or 
prohibit  the  franchise  of  Irish  and  Germans 
because  the  latter  were  opposed  to  Federalist 
principles  and  institutions.  He  would  main- 
tain and  extend  their  franchise  because  they 
favored  democratic  principles  and  institu- 
tions. The  names  of  Lafayette,  DeKalb,  and 
Montgomery  attested  the  obligation  that  was 
due  to  foreign  blood  poured  out  in  the  Revo- 
lution. The  national  jealousy  and  selfishness 
which  shut  out  the  foreigner  rarely  ever 
failed  to  produce  evils.  Good  policy  dictated 
admitting  them.  He  closed  with  an  appeal 
to  foreigners  to  support  democracy  in  order 
to  secure  to  themselves  the  liberties  which 
the  Revolution  had  purchased.^^ 

It  was  in  August,  1842,  that  Walker  in  the 
Senate  asked  leave  to  bring  in  a  bill  ''to  re- 
duce from  five  to  two  years  the  term  of  resi- 
dence required  for  the  naturalization  of  for- 
eigners."      This     led     to     some     discussion. 

^^  Congressional  Globe,  Twenty-sixth  Congress,  Second  Session, 
Appendix,  266;  January,   1841. 


212     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

Archer  (Va.)  declared  that  the  subject  was 
too  grave  to  discuss  at  the  heel  of  the  ses- 
sion. He  believed  that  naturalization  law^s 
were  sufficient  for  all  present  purposes,  and 
hoped  that  the  Senate  would  resist  the  bill 
at  the  threshold.  He  moved  to  lay  the  re- 
quest on  the  table.  Walker  replied  that  he 
was  only  seeking  to  revive  the  original  act, 
sanctioned  by  Washington.  Why  should 
that  be  thought  extraordinary !  The  aliens 
in  1830  had  numbered  107,832.  They  were 
not  counted  in  1840;  but  if  they  had  increased 
in  proportion  to  the  immigration,  they  num- 
bered then  283,543.  He  objected  entirely  to 
the  existence  of  so  many  aliens  among  the 
population,  particularly  as  he  did  not  believe 
they  desired  to  be  aliens.  Increasing  the 
number  of  aliens  increased  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  federal  courts.  The  vast  immigration 
would  increase  the  business  of  the  Supreme 
Court  prodigiously,  and  it  was  already  so 
great  that  the  court  could  do  only  one-half 
of  its  business  at  the  last  session.  The  de- 
bate in  the  McLeod  case  had  called  attention 
to  the  matter.  Looking  at  what  had  taken 
place  that  very  session  in  relation  to  cases 
in  which  aliens  were  parties,  he  was  really 
alarmed  at  the  enormous  stretch  of  federal 
power.     There  was  a  necessity  of  diminish- 


BEGINNINGS  OF  NATIVE  AMERICANISM     213 

ing  the  number  of  individuals  in  respect  to 
whom  the  jurisdiction  of  the  federal  courts 
could  be  applied.  If  he  had  anticipated 
the  possibility  of  any  such  objections  as 
had  been  offered  to  the  introduction  of 
the  bill,  he  might  state  other  reasons  more 
at  length.  He  did  not  even  then  apprehend 
that  the  unusual  course  of  refusing  in- 
troduction to  the  bill  would  be  taken. 
Every  steamboat  to  the  West  was  crowded 
with  emigrants,  going  to  purchase  lands  and 
place  their  families  there.  Their  exclusion 
from  citizenship  had  been  so  severely  felt  that 
two  of  the  western  states  had  given  them 
the  right  to  vote.  This  anomalous  state  of 
things  was  the  result  of  changing  the  resi- 
dence requirement  from  two  to  five  years. 
There  was  no  reason  why  men  should  not  be- 
come citizens  at  the  end  of  two  as  well  as  of 
five  years.  In  case  of  war  they  had  300,000 
aliens,  mostly  along  the  western  frontier,  who 
would  be  claimed  by  a  foreign  power.  He 
rejoiced  to  see  the  numbers  coming,  wel- 
comed them,  and  called  attention  to  the  ef- 
forts being  put  forth  to  divert  them  to  the 
British  colonies,  and  particularly  to  Australia, 
by  granting  the  privilege  of  citizenship.  Ar- 
cher made  answer  that  he  was  totally  averse 
to  other  terms  of  naturalization.  Their  ances- 


214     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

tors  had  soon  changed  from  two  to  fourteen 
years,  and  then  back  to  an  intermediate 
term.  Five  years  was  a  proper,  just,  and 
reasonable  time.  No  good  man  ever  re- 
nounced entirely  his  attachment  to  his  native 
soil.  Would  it  be  proper  in  any  sense  to 
admit  as  citizens  a  large  class  having  foreign 
attachments  and  feelings  adverse  to  theirs? 
He  desired  to  stigmatize  the  proposition  by 
its  immediate  rejection.  King  thought  cour- 
tesy alone  might  dictate  a  vote  against 
Archer's  motion.  Walker's  request  was, 
however,  laid  on  the  table  by  a  vote  of  21  to 
18. 


CHAPTER  XII 

THE   PERIOD   OF  AGGRESSIVE   NATIVE   AMERI- 
CANISM 

About  forty  petitions  asking  for  amend- 
ment of  the  naturalization  laws  were  re- 
ceived in  both  Senate  and  House  during  the 
session  of  1843-44.  Some  of  them  contained 
hundreds  of  signatures.  One  was  said  to  be 
the  petition  of  ten  thousand  citizens  of  New 
York  state. ^  One  from  Wisconsin  Territory- 
sought  an  extension  of  the  suffrage  to  resi- 
dents of  the  territories.^  Two  from  western 
New  York  were  in  the  interests  of  alien  sail- 
ors whose  employment  took  them  out  of  the 
territory  of  the  United  States  during  their 
preliminary  residence  period.^  Nearly  all  of 
the  others  sought  to  extend  the  residence 
period  for  naturalization  to  twenty-one  years. 

Buchanan  presented  one  in  the  Senate 
numerously  signed  by  citizens  of  Philadel- 
phia. He  said  that  he  could  not  advocate 
the  prayer  it  contained,  nor  consent  to  the 
requirement  of  twenty-one  years'  residence. 
He   was   opposed   to   any   change    in    the   natu- 

^  (438)  House  Journal,  Twenty-eighth  Congress,  First  Session, 
433- 

•Ibid.,  357;   February  7,    1844.  'Ibid.,    706,    717. 

215 


2i6     NATURALIZATION  IN   UNITED  STATES 

ralization  laws.  The  memorialists,  however, 
were  anxious  for  a  decision  as  early  as  pos- 
sible, and  he  thought  that  there  were  impera- 
tive reasons  why  it  should  be  made.  He 
moved  reference  to  the  Judiciary  Committee, 
and  expressed  his  strong  desire  that  they  re- 
port with  as  little  delay  as  possible.  Twice 
thereafter  he  repeated  his  strong  desire  for 
a  speedy  report.^ 

Sturgeon  presented  one  of  the  petitions, 
and  was  far  from  concurring  in  the  necessity 
for  the  action  sought.  It  was  his  conviction 
that  foreigners  ought  to  be  entitled  to  citizen- 
'ship  as  soon  as  they  were  ready  to  give  sat- 
isfactory proof  of  a  preference  for  the  coun- 
try and  its  institutions  such  as  induced  them 
to  make  it  a  permanent  residence.  Since  it 
was  difficult  to  act  on  a  presumption  of  in- 
tentions, he  believed  that  the  law  as  it  stood 
was,  on  the  whole,  best  calculated  to  obviate 
all  difificulties.  He  thought  that  foreigners 
ought  not  to  object  to  the  restriction, 
since  in  many  states  native  citizens  could 
not  enjoy  the  privileges  of  state  citizenship 
till  after  two  years'  residence.^  There  was 
further  discussion  a  few  days  later  ^  upon  the 

*  Congressional    Globe,    Twenty-eighth    Congress,    First    Session, 
67s;    June    I,    1844. 

5 /iiW.,  691,  June  6,  1844. 
•June    II,    1844. 


AGGRESSIVE  NATIVE  AMERICANISM       217 

presentation  of  two  memorials  from  Phila- 
delphia asking  for  twenty-one  years'  resi- 
dence and  "more  solemn  sanctions."  Archer 
said  that  the  time  was  too  short  before  ad- 
journment to  admit  of  the  possibility  of  de- 
cided action.  On  a  proper  occasion,  if  no 
other  person  did  so,  he  would  make  the 
necessary  motion  to  secure  the  object  of  the  peti- 
tioners. Berrien,  of  the  Judiciary  Commit- 
tee, said  that  this  was  a  question  of  the  great- 
est importance  and  had  been  so  considered 
from  the  foundation  of  the  government.  Re- 
cently it  had  been  productive  of  great  excite- 
ment, the  result  of  which  was  deeply  to  be 
deplored.'^  This  prayer  was  presented  at  a 
very  late  period  of  the  session,  when  the  com- 
mittee had  a  variety  of  matter  before  it.  He  be- 
lieved it  was  too  late  to  secure  deliberate  action 
of  the  committee. 

Allen    was    utterly    opposed    to    any    such 

''  The  diary  of  John  Quincy  Adams,  for  May  9,  1844,  ex- 
plained what  he  termed  a  new  subject  of  political  excitement  that 
must  have  great  influence  for  good  or  evil  "(God  grant  it  may  be 
for  good)"  upon  the  future  history  and  fortunes  of  the  Union. 
There  was  a  deadly  feud  between  the  native  American  poor  popu- 
lation and  the  Roman  Catholic  Irish  multitudes  gathered  in  the  city 
of  Philadelphia.  Animosities  between  those  classes  had  been  fer- 
menting in  all  the  Atlantic  cities  for  several  years,  much  aggra- 
vated by  the  pernicious  factious  influence  of  Irish  Catholics  over 
the  elections  in  all  the  populous  cities.  The  reaction  of  the  native 
American  population  had  effected  a  total  revolution  at  the  recent 
election  of  the  city  government  of  New  York,  and  had  just  broken 
out  in  furious  riots  in  Philadelphia,  where  from  the  first  of  the 
week  a  succession  of  bitterly  exasperated  mobs  had  destroyed  multi- 
tudes of  human  lives,  dwelling-houses,  schools,  and  churches,  un- 
restrained by  the  government  of  the  city  or  of  the  state      (XII,  34). 


2i8     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

change  of  laws  to  the  prejudice  of  the  people. 
It  involved  manifest  injustice  and  inhuman- 
ity. Nothing  could  tend  more  to  exasperate 
the  feelings  of  men,  disturb  harmony,  and  ex- 
cite hostility  to  their  institutions  in  the  very 
bosom  of  the  country.  He  should  resist  it 
to  the  utmost.*  Benton  presented  two  memo- 
rials, but  was  opposed  to  their  prayer,  agreed 
with  Allen,  and  was  favorable  to  the  largest 
liberty.^ 

On  June  15,  1844,  Berrien  reported  for  the 
Senate  Committee  on  Judiciary  on  sundry 
memorials  before  it.  The  question  was  one 
of  awakening  interest  and  affected  a  policy 
little  varied  from  the  commencement  of  the 
government.  The  memorialists  thought  that 
changes  in  conditions  rendered  proper  a 
modification  of  the  laws.  The  committee 
was  disposed  to  treat  their  suggestions  with 
deserved  respect,  and  to  give  the  questions 
involved  the  most  deliberate  consideration. 
But  it  was  obviously  impracticable  to  give 
them  the  needed  consideration,  and  impos- 
sible that  any  action  should  be  had,  at  that 
session.  They  therefore  asked  to  be  dis- 
charged from  further  consideration  of  the 
subject.^** 

■'*  Congressional  Globe,  Twenty-eighth  Congress,  First  Session, 
658;    June    II,    1844. 

»  Ibid..   658,   686. 

^^  (436)  Senate  Documents,  Twenty-eighth  Congress,  First  Ses- 
sion, 395. 


AGGRESSIVE  NATIVE  AMERICANISM       219 

In  the  House  during  this  session  three  dif- 
ferent members  gave  notice  of  a  motion  to 
be  made  for  leave  to  introduce  a  bill  to  amend 
the  naturalization  laws,  but  it  does  not  ap- 
pear that  any  bills  were  introduced  upon  the 
subject.  John  Quincy  Adams  presented  a 
Pennsylvania  petition  praying  for  such 
amendments  to  the  naturalization  laws  that 
twenty-one  years'  residence  after  they  had 
declared  their  intentions  should  be  made  the 
indispensable  prerequisite  to  the  admission 
of  foreigners  into  the  inestimable  rights  of 
American  citizens.  Adams  said  that  he  pre- 
sented the  petition  in  a  formal  way  because 
it  related  to  a  subject  of  considerable  im- 
portance upon  which  there  was  considerable 
difference  of  opinion.  He  was  willing  to  af- 
ford the  unknown  petitioners  the  satisfaction 
of  having  their  matter  brought  pointedly  be- 
fore the  House;  but  he  would  not  bind  him- 
self in  any  way  to  support  their  prayer.  In 
his  diary  he  wrote  that  he  presented  the  pe- 
tition of  180  Native  Americans  of  Philadel- 
phia praying  for  a  change  in  the  naturaliza- 
tion laws  and  twenty-five  years'  ^^  residence 
for  political  rights ;  but  he  did  not  approve 
of  the  change  in  the  law,  and  felt  obliged  to 

^1  Either   "twenty-five"   was  used   as  a  round  number,   and  may 

thus  indicate  the   newness  of  the  twenty-one   year  agitation,   or   it   is 

an  evident  error.     The  House  Journal  is  explicit  with  reference  to 
this  petition. 


220     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

say  that  he  could  not  support  it.  He  had 
moved  its  reference  to  the  Committee  on  Ju- 
diciary, but  a  motion  to  lay  on  the  table,  by 
Brown  (Ind.)  and  Hammett  (Miss.),  had 
carried  by  a  vote  of  128  to  26.^^ 

After  two  weeks  Adams  secured  the  re- 
moval of  the  petition  from  the  table  and  its 
reference  to  the  Judiciary  Committee.  Near 
the  close  of  the  session  he  was  seeking  a  copy 
of  it  of  the  clerk,  and  intending  to  see  whether 
the  National  Intelligencer  would  publish  it. 
He  wrote  that  it  was  the  first  memorial  on 
the  subject  presented  to  the  House,  and 
predicted  that  at  the  next  session  of  Congress 
the  Native  American  party  would  be .  heard 
in  both  houses,  when  the  proceedings  of  the 
House  on  that  first  memorial  would  have  a 
material  influence  on  the  debate.^^ 

The  extreme  note  in  the  Native  American 
agitation  of  this  period  was  perhaps  struck 
in  a  work  on  the  Civil  Government  of  the 
Hebrews  by  Professor  Wines.  He  would 
welcome  the  immigrants  fleeing  from  wrongs, 
but  go  to  Moses  for  a  public  policy  and  study 
the  principle  of  his  naturalization  laws.  Ad- 
mission to  citizenship  was  called  "entering 
into  the   congregation   of  Jehovah."   Certain 

^-  Memoirs,  XII,  40. 

^^  (438)  House  Journal,  Twenty-eighth  Congress,  First  Session, 
988,  1130;  Congressional  Globe,  Twenty-eighth  Congress,  First 
Session,   633;   May  31,    1844;   J.   Q.   Adams'  Memoirs,  XII,   40,   65. 


AGGRESSIVE  NATIVE  AMERICANISM       221 

races  were  not  to  be  admitted  to  the  tenth 
generation — in  other  words,  never.  Some 
other  foreigners  could  become  IsraeHtish 
citizens  in  the  third  generation.  In  other 
words,  the  grandchildren  of  immigrants 
could  be  admitted  to  the  privileges  of  natives 
of  the  soil.  Thus  naturalization  in  senti- 
ments, habits,  sympathies,  and  manners  was 
required  before  privileges  were  given  by  a 
legal  naturalization.  The  principle  must 
commend  itself,  but  need  not  always  be  ap- 
plied in  equal  rigor.^^ 

During  the  next  session  of  Congress  thirty 
Native  American  petitions  found  mention  in 
the  Senate  Journal,  and  a  larger  number  were 
received  by  the  House,  including  some  of  the 
former  ones.  A  resolution  by  Johnson  in- 
structed the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee  to 
inquire  into  the  expediency  of  modifying  the 
laws  to  extend  the  term  allowed  to  enable 
foreigners  to  become  citizens,  to  require 
greater  guards  against  fraud  in  the  steps  to 
be  taken  in  procuring  naturalization  papers, 
and  to  prevent,  as  far  as  practicable,  fraud 
and  violence  at  elections.  To  this  resolution 
was  added  by  an  amendment,  "and  prohibit 
the  introduction  of  foreign  convicts  into  the 
United  States."  ^^ 

^*  Niles  Register,  LXNII,  162. 

^i*  (448)  Senate  Journal,  Twenty-eighth  Congress,  Second  Se* 
sion,   30. 


222     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

A  resolution  submitted  by  Barrow  a  little 
later  gave  similar  instructions  for  an  inquiry 
to  be  made  whether  naturalization  papers 
had  been  granted  to  foreigners  by  any  fed- 
eral or  state  court  in  violation  of  the  pro- 
visions of  the  laws  of  Congress;  also  with 
regard  to  empowering  the  district  court  to 
cancel  and  declare  null  all  naturalization 
papers  which  were  found,  upon  judicial  in- 
vestigation, to  have  been  granted  in  viola- 
tion or  fraud  of  the  laws  of  Congress. ^^ 

The  Johnson  resolution  called  forth  some 
vigorous  expressions  of  opinion  before  it  was 
referred.  Johnson  held  that  the  facilities 
with  which  foreigners  had  been  naturalized 
for  a  few  years  past,  the  perjuries  committed, 
the  fraud  and  violence  controlling  elections, 
proved  the  necessity  of  an  immediate  change 
in  the  naturalization  laws.  There  was  no 
doubt  that  public  sentiment  everywhere  called 
loudly  for  prompt  action.  Thousands  of  for- 
eigners were  naturalized  and  voted  within  a 
few  weeks  after  reaching  America.  In  New 
York  City  alone  over  three  thousand  persons 
were  naturalized  a  few  days  before  an  elec- 
tion. A  Philadelphia  vigilance  committee 
had  reported  305  votes  in  a  single  ward,  and 
not  one  of  the  persons  was  found  after  ten 

I'j  Loc.  cif.,  40,  44. 


AGGRESSIVE  NATIVE  AMERICANISM       223 

days.  The  laws  had  been  valuable  at  first, 
and  had  brought  much  development  and 
many  good  citizens.  Now  the  country  was 
strong  and  did  not  need  outside  strength- 
There  was  no  longer  need  to  invite  knowl- 
edge by  promising  political  privileges. ^^ 
Some  desirable  persons  might  continue  to 
come,  but  the  mass  was  not  desirable.  He 
would  grant  property  rights,  but  require  a 
long  residence  for  political  rights.  They 
must  prohibit  the  sending  of  convicts  and 
paupers.  The  question  was  one  far  above 
party  considerations,  and  all  were  equally  in- 
terested  in  guarding  against   dangers. 

Archer  said  that  there  was  very  great 
solicitude  in  the  question  by  the  people.  He 
believed  in  his  very  conscience  that  it  had 
become  the  most  important  question  that 
could  agitate  the  public  mind.  It  was  more 
than  transcendental  in  magnitude  and  impor- 
tance, comprehending  every  other  vital  issue. 
He  hoped  for  an  early  report. 

Rives  had  no  hesitation  in  favoring  an  in- 
quiry as  to  frauds.  There  was  no  doubt  as  to 
the  alarming  extent  of  the  abuses.  He  would 
not  exclude  nor  unreasonably  restrain  nat- 
uralization; and  would  give  every  foreigner, 

"  Tliis  was  a  reference  to  an  idea,  not  met  with  often,  nor 
for  a  long  time  before,  namely,  that  liberal  naturalization  laws  were 
necessary  to  attract  skilled  and  educated  foreigners  who  would 
be  particularly  serviceable  to  the  country. 


224     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

when  naturalized,  his  fair  and  just  share  in 
the  government.  The  long  and  successful 
policy  of  the  past  seemed  to  him  wise  and 
prudent.  But  the  practice  had  degenerated 
into  a  public  mockery,  and  idle,  empty  form. 
A  ridiculous  pantomime  made  full-blown 
citizens,  by  platoons  of  twenty  to  fifty  at  the 
clerk's  desk,  of  persons  ignorant  of  the  lan- 
guage. It  was  so  in  New  York.  Buffalo, 
Philadelphia,  and  probably  in  Louisiana. 
The  evil  came  from  relaxations  from  original 
provisions  of  the  law.  The  remedy  was  to 
reinvigorate  the  present  laws.  Registry  of 
arrival  was  important,  and  a  full  record  in 
the  certificate  of  naturalization.  Making  the 
declaration  to  a  clerk,  and  the  reduction  of 
the  time  required  for  it  from  three  to  two 
years,  were  among  the  sources  of  the  evils ; 
also  the  repeal  in  1828  of  Jefferson's  and 
Madison's  provisions.  It  would  be  time 
enough  to  extend  the  period  after  restoring 
and  trying  those  provisions. 

Merrick  thought  that  the  excitement 
should  be  directed  against  their  own  people 
who  had  abused  the  laws.  Dickinson  said 
that  the  resolutions  apparently  were  not 
aimed  at  abuses,  but  at  the  system.  It  was 
impossible  to  improve  men's  condition  by  de- 
jiying    them    political    rights    and    privileges. 


AGGRESSIVE  NATIVE  AMERICANISM       225 

Foster  thought  that  persons  unfit  for  citizen- 
ship in  five  years  after  their  arrival  would  be 
after  twenty  years.  There  was  no  moral  test 
applied  to  those  who  were  born  in  the  United 
States.  Berrien  said  that  it  was  scarcely 
practicable  to  have  a  very  prompt  report. 
Great  frauds  were  alleged,  and  considerable 
frauds  seemed  to  be  almost  universally  ad- 
mitted. Judging  from  the  magnitude  and 
delicacy  of  the  inquiry,  a  prompt  report  was 
not  to  be  expected.^* 

Buchanan,  in  remarks  at  the  presentation 
of  a  memorial  the  next  day,  was  against  ex- 
tending the  five-year  period.  If  frauds  as 
charged  were  established,  he  would  go  with 
the  farthest-going  in  amending  the  laws  to 
prevent  them. 

Archer  was  extremely  anxious  to  express 
his  sentiments,  but  that  was  not  the  time  for 
them.  He  perceived  that  there  was  to  be  a 
hot  war  in  the  country  in  relation  to  the  sub- 
ject, and  was  deeply  concerned  at  the  indi- 
cations of  the  previous  day's  debate*  He  had 
hoped  before  that  an  impression  had  been 
produced  on  the  Senate  such  as  he  knew 
prevailed  in  the  country.  He  was  grieved 
not  to  see  that  feeling  there,  but  was  glad 
that  the   people  knew   the   Senate's   position 

^^Congressional  Globe,   32;   December,    16,    1844. 


226     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

SO  early.  It  was  not  enough  to  cut  off  ex- 
crescences; they  must  eradicate  the  root  of 
the  evil.  If  the  Senate  did  not  give  redress, 
the  people  would. 

A  request  from  the  Senate,  made  at  the 
instance  of  Berrien  of  the  Judiciary  Commit- 
tee,^^ brought  a  report  from  the  secretary  of 
state  as  to  the  practice  of  foreign  govern- 
ments in  transporting  paupers  and  criminals 
to  the  United  States.  Aside  from  a  letter 
from  Hamburg  in  1832,  showing  that  a  num- 
ber of  persons  from  prisons  and  houses  of 
correction,  claimed  mostly  to  be  guilty  of 
boyish  indiscretions,  had  been  released  and 
given  passports  to  North  America,  nothing 
of  consequence  was  shown  in  addition  to 
what  was  in  the  report  made  in  1838.^*^ 

Five  w^eeks  before  the  expiration  of  the 
Twenty-Eighth  Congress,  Berrien  made  a 
preliminary  report  for  the  Senate  Judiciary 
Committee.  They  had  given  earnest  atten- 
tion to  the  subject,  on  account  both  of  its  in- 
trinsic importance  and  of  the  public  feeling 
manifested  in  regard  to  it.  They  had  issued 
commissions  that  were  in  process  of  execu- 
tion, and  had  "prepared  a  bill  meanwhile  cal- 

1*  (448)  Senate  Journal,  Twenty-eighth  Congress,  Second  Ses- 
sion, 50. 

'"  (450)  Senate  Documents,  Twenty-eighth  Congress,  Second 
Session,    No.    42. 


AGGRESSIVE  NATIVE  AMERICANISM       227 

ciliated  to  supply  the  more  prominent  de- 
fects" of  the  existing  system.  They  sub- 
mitted it  on  account  of  the  short  time  remain- 
ing and  the  importance  of  action  at  that  ses- 
sion, postponing  further  report  until  returns 
should  be  received  from  the  commissions.^^ 

A  second  report  from  Berrien's  committee 
was  made  March  3,  1845,  j^^st  at  the  close 
of  the  Twenty-Eighth  Congress. ^^  The  com- 
missions for  taking  testimony  in  New  York, 
Philadelphia,  and  Baltimore  had  completed 
their  work  too  late  for  the  committee  to  do 
more  than  present  abstracts  from  the  testi- 
mony they  had  taken.  The  New  Orleans 
commission   reported   later. 

The  investigation  in  New  York  was 
thorough,  and  included  the  collection  of  much 
testimony  from  judges,  and  clerks  of  courts, 
political  workers,  and  others.  A  great  deal 
of  light  is  thrown  upon  the  practical  work- 
ings of  the  naturalization  law  in  several 
classes  of  courts.  Judge  Hammond,  of  the 
Marine  Court  for  the  Southern  District  of 
New  York,  testified  that  for  the  first  six  of 
his  ten  years'  service  as  a  judge  his  court  had 
probably  naturalized  more  persons  than  any 
other  one  court  of  New  York.     Declarations 

-'  //)/</. ,  No.  59. 

2'^  (458)  ibid..  No.  173 ;  March  3,  1845. 


2  28     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

and  depositions  were  printed  in  blank  and 
bound  up  in  books  for  record.  They  were 
signed  by  the  party  and  sworn  to.  A  cer- 
tificate was  taken  away.  Only  one  witness 
was  required,  except  for  those  showing  resi- 
dence between  1802  and  1812.  He  always 
examined  persons  orally;  they  subscribed 
their  names  and  were  sworn  on  the  Bible. 
The  character  of  the  applicant,  and  his  atti- 
tude toward  the  government  and  the  Constitu- 
tion, were  sworn  to  by  the  witness.  He  was 
not  cross-examined  with  regard  to  them. 
Others  testified  to  the  same  procedure  in 
this  respect  in  other  courts,  and  that  it  was 
very  much  a  matter  of  form  or  entirely  nuga- 
tory, as  questions  were  seldom  asked.  A 
witness  was  never  known  to  hesitate  to  swear 
to  these  particulars. 

Since  about  1839  or  1840  the  Marine  Court 
had  interpreted  literally  the  requirement  of 
five  years'  residence  in  the  United  States. 
It  had  excluded  eight  persons  in  one  week 
for  having  been  out  of  the  United  States 
during  their  residence  period.  Before  the 
time  mentioned  this  requirement  had  been 
generally  overlooked.  Decisions  upon  this 
point  in  other  courts  had  conflicted.  A  du- 
plicate certificate  of  naturalization  was  given 
when  the  original  had  been  lost  or  destroyed. 


AGGRESSIVE  NATIVE  AMERICANISM       229 

The  facts  were  sworn  to  if  there  was  doubt 
about  them.  The  judge  knew  of  one  case  of 
a  witness  being  convicted  who  had  made  a 
practice  of  testifying  for  appHcants.  Natur- 
aHzation  was  the  only  business  the  law  al- 
lowed to  be  done  on  election  day.  About 
eighty  in  an  eight-hour  day  was  the  most 
they  had  naturalized.  At  other  than  election 
times  they  averaged  perhaps  three  or  four 
a  week.  The  clerk  had  once  counted  up 
eighteen  hundred  naturalizations  in  a  year. 
Two  thousand  would  probably  be  the  ex- 
treme number,  and  some  years  the  number 
was  probably  not  one  thousand.  The  clerk 
attended  to  the  fees.  A  former  clerk  had 
probably  compounded  the  fees,  making  an 
arrangement  by  which  voucher  slips  were 
presented  drawing  on  a  sum  of  money  de- 
posited with  him. 

Another  justice  of  the  Marine  Court  had 
known  the  same  person  to  get  several  dupli- 
cate certificates  of  his  declaration  of  inten- 
tion. It  was  easy  to  get  a  duplicate  after  a 
naturalization  in  another  court.  The  examin- 
ation was  always  oral,  and  often  fifteen  or 
twenty  a  day  were  rejected.  Naturalizations 
at  election  times  were  mostly  due  to  the  in- 
ducement of  others.  At  other  times  of  the 
year  they  were   usually  for  the   purpose   of 


230     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

holding  real  estate.  He  had  observed  one 
political  witness  who  appeared  to  be  em- 
ployed for  the  purpose  of  giving  testimony. 
Papers  filled  out  in  writing  and  in  print  had 
come  to  his  court  addressed  to  other  courts. 
The  parties  bringing  them  had  said  that  they 
got  them  at  Tammany  Hall  and  were  sent 
there.  An  interpreter  was  often  required — 
at  the  time  of  the  last  election  in  the  case  of 
nearly  half  of  the  applicants.  Arrangements 
with  committees  had  been  made  frequently 
by  the  former  clerk,  and  tickets  drawing  upon 
a  sum  of  money  deposited  had  been  accepted 
in  place  of  fees.  Papers  had  been  withheld 
until  the  parties  had  voted. 

Another  justice  said  that  perjuries  had  been 
complained  of  to  him.  The  courts'  refusal  to 
arrange  with  committees  had  driven  the  prin- 
cipal business  to  other  courts.  One  judge 
could  naturalize  from  fifty  to  a  hundred  per- 
sons in  seven  hours.  The  number  would  de- 
pend upon  the  intelligence  of  the  parties,  etc., 
and  upon  the  care  taken. 

Judge  Vanderpoel,  of  the  New  York  Su- 
perior Court,  knew  of  no  fraud.  Before  the 
decision  of  the  State  Supreme  Court  in  Octo- 
ber, 1844,  persons  domiciled  in  the  United 
States  for  five  years,  and  sailors  on  the  pack- 
ets with   families   in   the   United  States,   had 


AGGRESSIVE  NATIVE  AMERICANISM       231 

been  naturalized.  The  chief  justice  had  told 
him  that  a  decision  favored  this  practice. 
When  applicants  were  numerous,  they  were 
sworn  by  the  clerk  either  in  open  court  or  in 
the  clerk's  office.  They  came  next  to  this 
judge,  who  administered  the  general  oath  to 
the  witness  and  indorsed  the  papers  when  he 
had  approved  them.  In  cases  of  doubt  he 
examined  them  critically.  The  applicant  and 
his  witness  then  went  into  open  court  before 
another  judge  who  was  holding  court,  and 
took  the  printed  oaths.  In  a  majority  of 
cases  the  applicants  came  with  their  prelimi- 
nary papers  filled  out.  He  believed  that  this 
was  done  by  a  naturalization  committee  in 
session  at  Tammany  Hall,  or  by  their  oppo- 
nents. 

Henry  Raymond  testified  that  he  arranged 
for  the  use  of  tickets  recently,  as  he  had  done 
for  years.  There  might  have  been  a  thousand 
or  fifteen  hundred  tickets. ^^  The  parties  paid 
their  own  fees  if  they  were  able.  His  com- 
mittee employed  a  dozen  clerks  who  prepared 
papers  and  filled  up  affidavits. 

Henry  E.  Riell  testified  that  he  was  presi- 
dent of  the    Naturalization    Society    of    New 

*3  Other  testimony  showed   that   a  printed   ticket  was  used  with 
the  names  written  in,  in  form  as  follows: 
"New  York,  Apr.  17,  1840, 

"The  Marine  Court  will  please  naturalize  George  Terry. 
Endorsed:  "Burlington,  N.  J."  James   John   Valentine." 


232     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

York  City.  Its  members  were  generally 
Democrats..  He  made  out  most  of  the  papers 
for  Tammany.  It  was  customary  to  advertise 
that  the  committee  was  in  session.  Tickets 
were  issued,  and  he  redeemed  them.  They 
were  generally  given  to  poor  people — those 
who  wished  to  pay  their  own  fees  went  di- 
rectly to  the  court.  The  usual  number  natu- 
ralized through  the  agency  of  the  committee 
at  spring  and  fall  elections  was  about  one 
thousand,  except  that  in  the  fall  of  1840 
about  three  thousand  were  naturalized  in  five 
months.  The  parties  invariably  received 
their  certificates  at  the  time  of  their  admis- 
sion, and  voted  for  whom  they  pleased.^* 
They  came  to  his  committee  voluntarily  in 
all  cases,  and  he  took  it  for  granted  that  they 
were  Democrats. 

Other  evidence  indicated  that  the  Whig 
committees  had  for  a  time  pursued  similar 
methods,  but  for  two  years  past  had  resolved 
not  to  do  so  longer. 

The  report  of  the  Philadelphia  commission 
dealt  mainly  with  the  numbers  naturalized  in 
various  courts,  and  the  fees  charged.  It 
showed,  however,  that  sixty-four  declarations 
of  intention,  fraudulently  interpolated  in  the 
records  of  a  court,  and  dated  back  two  years 

^^  Other  testimony  was  to  the  effect  that  certificates  were  some- 
times  withheld   until   after   the   parties  had   voted. 


AGGRESSIVE  NATIVE  AMERICANISM       233 

to  admit  of  the  prompt  naturalization  of  the 
parties,  had  been  discovered  and  annulled  a 
few  days  before  the  election  of  1840.  At 
Baltimore  various  cases  of  fraudulent  voting 
by  using  dead  men's  naturalization  papers 
were  discovered.  The  New  Orleans  report 
dealt  with  the  testimony  in  the  impeachment 
of  a  judge  who  was  removed  in  1844  for 
naturalizing  with  great  haste,  carelessness, 
informality,  and  disregard  of  legal  require- 
ments. The  reports  show  that  the  number 
of  persons  naturalized  varied  greatly  in  the 
different  courts.  It  was  much  greater  in  the 
state  courts,  where  the  fees  were  lower  and 
the  requirements  generally  less  rigid.  Natu- 
ralizations were  largely  had  within  two 
weeks  of  election  days. 

The  fees  varied  greatly,  being  much  higher 
in  federal  than  in  state  courts.  They  were 
often  reduced  by  arrangement  with  political 
committees.  The  legal  fees  ranged  from  50 
cents  to  $3  for  naturalization,  and  from  20 
cents  to  $1.25  for  a  declaration  of  intention. 
The  fees  had  recently  been  much  reduced  in 
the   New   York   state   courts. 

There  were  many  recommendations  made 
by  the  witnesses,  most  of  which  were  for  the 
purpose  of  preventing  fraud  or  of  securing 
better-qualified     citizens.     The  more     important 


234    NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

ant  of  them  were  already  embodied  in  the  bill 
of  the  committee  before  the  commissions  had 
finished  their  work.  There  was  little  demand 
for  a  long  term  of  residence,  but  a  general 
desire  that  a  residence  for  six  months  or  a 
year  after  naturalization  should  precede  suf- 
frage. One  would  shorten  the  five-year  term 
by  this  period.  Others  would  prohibit  natural- 
ization  for  some  time  before  an  election.  Many 
would  confine  naturalization  to  United  States 
courts,  and  there  was  a  suggestion  that 
special  United  States  courts  be  established 
for  naturalizing.  A  previous  notice  of  inten- 
tion shortly  before  the  application  was 
favored.  This  should  be  served  on  the  dis- 
trict attorney  or  a  federal  ofificer;  or  a  notice 
with  names  of  witnesses  should  be  published. 
A  certificate  of  declaration  of  intention  should 
be  evidence  of  the  time  of  arrival  in  the 
United  States.  Again,  applicants  should  be 
required  to  swear  to  their  term  of  residence. 
They  should  also  swear  to  their  attachment 
to  the  Constitution,  and  to  being  well  dis- 
posed to  the  government.  A  description  of 
the  person  should  be  in  the  declaration  of  in- 
tention and  in  the  certificate  of  naturaliza- 
tion, so  that  one  person  could  not  use  the 
papers  of  another.  The  papers  should  be 
indorsed  with  signature^  if  the  person  could 


AGGRESSIVE  NATIVE  AMERICANISM       235 

write,  and  the  certificate  should  be  produced 
at  the  polls.  Vessels  should  deposit  a  list 
and  description  of  all  persons  brought  to  the 
United  States.  Candidates  for  naturalization 
should  understand  and  speak  the  English 
language,  and  should  expressly  abjure  all 
temporal  allegiance  to  the  pope.  Congress 
should  fix  all  fees  and  forbid  remitting  any 
part  of  them ;  or  again  there  should  be  no 
fees  allowed.  Persons  should  be  punished 
for  applying  for  naturalization  in  another 
court  after  having  been  once  rejected.  A 
wide  door  for  fraud  was  in  the  granting  of 
duplicate  certificates  of  declaration  of  inten- 
tion. Sometimes  fifty  a  day  of  these  were  ap- 
plied for  in  a  single  court  at  election  time. 

Meanwhile  the  bill  before  the  senate  was 
entirely  ignored  to  the  end  of  the  Congress. 
Its  leading  features  were  compulsory  record 
of  arrivals  to  form  documentary  evidence  of 
length  of  residence,  naturalization  restricted 
to  United  States  courts  and  to  times  remote 
from  elections,  the  process  of  naturalization 
more  minutely  specified,  fraud  of  any  sort  to 
be  punished  severely,  and  the  naturalization 
secured  by  it  to  be  annulled.  The  bill  provid- 
ed that  collectors  of  customs  should  receive 
reports  of  aliens  arriving  in  the  United 
States,  and  register  in  a  book  of  record  full 


236     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

descriptions  of  their  persons,  with  countries, 
times  and  places  of  arrival,  and  vessels,  places 
of  residence  in  the  United  States,  and  mem- 
bers of  their  families.  The  declaration  of  in- 
tention to  become  a  citizen  could  be  made 
only  in  United  States  circuit  and  district 
courts,  at  least  three  years  after  the  registry 
of  arrival,  upon  petition  and  production  of  a 
duly  authenticated  certificate  of  registry.  It 
must  contain  a  full  description  as  before,  be 
subscribed  in  a  book  of  record  together  with 
oath  as  to  being  the  person  described  in  the 
certificate,  be  sworn  to  in  the  presence  of 
the  judge  of  the  court,  and  attested  by  him. 
Two  years  later  the  alien  could  be  naturalized 
in  a  similar  court  upon  presenting  a  petition 
setting  forth  the  circumstances  of  his  case. 
His  certificate  of  registry  and  declaration 
must  be  given  up,  canceled,  and  filed.  The 
court  must  be  satisfied,  after  examination,  of 
his  identity,  of  the  genuineness  of  his  certifi- 
cates, lack  of  fraud,  residence  (five  years  and 
one  year,  as  before),  character,  and  disposi- 
tion (as  before),  and  that  he  had  not  been 
convicted  of  any  felony.  These  facts  were 
to  be  proved  by  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
whose  names,  residence,  and  occupations 
must  appear  in  the  record  and  in  the  certifi- 
cate.     Support   of  the   Constitution   must   be 


AGGRESSIVE  NATIVE  AMERICANISM       237 

promised,  and  the  usual  renunciation  of 
foreign  allegiance  made.  When  the  court 
was  satisfied,  it  might  decree  admission  to 
citizenship,  and  direct  a  certificate  to  be 
granted  under  seal  of  the  court,  signed  by 
judge  and  clerk.  The  certificate  must  con- 
tain a  copy  of  the  registry  with  full  descrip- 
tion and  particulars,  and  both  the  record  and 
the  certificates  must  show  that  all  require- 
ments of  the  law  had  been  met.  No  admis- 
sion could  take  place  except  by  express  order 
of  the  court   declared   in   the   records. 

Any  person  who  had  been  registered  while 
under  sixteen  as  a  part  of  the  family  of  an  alien, 
and  had  continued  his  residence  the  required 
time,  might  be  naturalized  according  to  law 
without  producing  a  certificate  of  registry 
or  a  previous  declaration  of  intention. 

No  second  certificate  could  be  granted 
without  proof  of  loss  of  the  first  by  accident, 
and  two  months'  public  advertising  for  it,  and 
then  only  to  the  party,  or  to  his  legal  repre- 
sentative if  dead. 

Proper  certificates  of  two  years'  war-time 
service  by  an  able-bodied  male  person  at  least 
seventeen  years  of  age  at  enlistment  shcniUl 
be  evidence  authorizing  naturalization  on 
taking  the  oath  of  allegiance  and  making  the 
required  renunciations.    No  decree  of  natural- 


238     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

izatioii  could  be  made  within  ~ months  of 

any  general  election  in  the  state  or  district, 
and  no  rights  were  conferred  outside  of  the 
state  or  district  for  months  after  naturali- 
zation. No  alien  enemy  could  be  naturalized. 
No  proof  should  be  admitted  or  received  of 
any  facts  made  a  matter  of  record,  except  the 
certificate  of  the  record.  Any  attempted 
fraud  by  any  person  in  naturalization  was 
made  a  high  misdemeanor.  The  court  having 
decreed  a  naturalization  could  re-examine  the 
same  at  any  time  within  five  years,  upon  pe- 
tition of  any  citizens,  or  upon  its  own  mo- 
tion; and  if  fraud,  wilful  irregularity,  or  gross 
negligence  appeared,  it  must  rescind  and  re- 
verse the  decree,  and  declare  the  naturaliza- 
tion to  be  utterly  null  and  void.  Any  alien 
already  in  the  United  States  who  should  at 
any  time  within  six  months  prove  five  years' 
residence  within  the  United  States,  and  that 
he  was  in  all  other  respects,  except  as  to  a 
certificate  of  registry,  entitled  to  naturali- 
zation under  the  new  act,  could  be  admitted 
to  citizenship  by  a  decree  of  the  court.  All 
conflicting  provisions  of  former  laws  were 
repealed. ^^ 

In  the  House  a  motion  was  "laid  over"  that 
sought  the  institution  of  an  inquiry  as  to  the 

26  (458)    Senate    Documents,    Twenty-eighth    Congress,    Second 
Session,    No.    173,    198. 


AGGRESSIVE  NATIVE  AMERICANISM       239 

expediency  of  a  law  to  authorize  taking  the 
testimony  of  absent  witnesses.  The  plan 
suggested  was  for  the  court,  upon  the  motion 
of  an  applicant,  to  issue  a  commission  author- 
izing any  justice  of  the  peace  or  clerk  of  a 
court  where  the  witnesses  resided  to  take 
their  testimony  in  writing,  certify  to  it,  and 
send  it  to  be  used  as  competent  evidence  to 
secure  the  applicant  the  benefit  of  the  natu- 
ralization law.  While  this  plan  would  doubt- 
less have  been  very  serviceable  to  many 
honest  applicants,  the  abundant  enlargement 
of  the  opportunity  for  fraud  that  it  would 
have  made  must  have  prevented  its  accept- 
ance, even  at  a  time  when  the  necessity  for 
guarding  the  franchise  was  less  prominently 
in  the  public  mind,  and  when  political  wisdom 
could  be  found  in  legislating  in  the  interest 
of  aliens. ^'^ 

A  motion  for  a  similar  inquiry  as  to  a  law 
to  require  that  the  name  of  every  emigrant 
should  be  registered  at  the  custom-house, 
and  a  certificate  of  such  registration  be  the 
indispensable  proof  of  the  term  of  his  resi- 
dence in  the  United  States;  also  as  to  a  law 
that  the  right  of  suffrage  should  not  be 
granted  until  two  years  after  naturalization ; 
and  as  to  any  other  amendments   necessary 

^*  (462)  House  Journal,  Twenty-eighth  Congress,  Second  Ses- 
sion, 96;   December  17,    1844. 


240     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

for  the  pervention  of  frauds  and  the  preser- 
vation of  the  purity  of  the  elective  franchise, 
was  laid  over  under  the  rules,  on  notice  of 
debate. ^^  Its  proposal  that  Congress  should 
legislate  to  control  the  right  of  suffrage  is 
rather  remarkable  for  this  period. 

The  House  Judiciary  Committee  report- 
ed^^  on  the  petitions  referred  to  it.  and  pre- 
sented a  bill  to  establish  a  uniform  rule  of 
naturalization,  and  to  repeal  all  other  acts  or 
parts  of  acts  on  that  subject.  The  report  first 
analyzed  all  former  acts,  both  existing  and 
obsolete.  It  said  that  the  laws  were  liberal, 
simple,  and  easily  understood,  and  had  under- 
gone no  change  for  seventeen  years.  They 
might  require  condensation  for  convenience 
and  perspicuity,  and  some  amendments  to 
prevent  imposition  and  fraud.  But  the  peti- 
tioners asked  for  a  radical  change  in  the 
residence  requirement,  which  the  committee 
supposed,  in  the  words  of  Jefferson,  "would 
in  effect  operate  as  a  denial  of  the  privilege 
altogether."  Such  a  restriction  would  con- 
flict with  the  policy  of  each  and  all  the  states 
in  their  early  settlement,  and  control  the  for- 
mer liberal  policy  of  the  federal  government. 
The   right  to  emigrate,  and  the   privilege  of 

-'  Congressional  Globe,  Twenty-eighth  Congress,  Second  Ses- 
sion, 64;  December  23,   1844. 

"^  January  31,   184s. 


AGGRESSIVE  NATIVE  AMERICANISM       241 

being  naturalized  under  provisions  the  least 
onerous  and  restrictive,  were  everywhere 
recognized  in  state  laws  and  constitutions. 
The  principle  involved,  the  right  to  renounce 
an  allegiance  by  birth  and  not  by  choice,  was 
acknowledged  from  the  constitution  of  New 
Hampshire  to  that  of  Louisiana.  The  Dec- 
laration of  Independence  had  complained  of 
England  that  she  "obstructed  the  laws  of 
naturalization  of  foreigners."  The  constitu- 
tional clause  for  naturalization  met  with  not 
the  slightest  olijection  either  in  forming  or 
adopting  the  Constitution.  The  secretary  of 
state  reported  of  foreign  governments  that 
they  all  used  aliens  in  war  against  their  na- 
tive country,  even  when  not  regularly  natu- 
ralized, and  that  they  allowed  their  own  sub- 
jects to  emigrate. 

But  why  multiply  references  and  examples  in  support 
of  the  principle  and  right  of  emigration  and  expatriation, 
in  contradistinction  to  the  doctrine  of  native  allegiance,  and 
the  disavowal  of  naturalization  —  a  doctrine  which  belongs 
to  those  dark  and  gloomy  periods  when  conquest  fettered 
the  persons,  and  superstition  weighed  down  the  minds  of 
men. 

Greece,  Rome,  and  modern  France  were 
better  models.  The  French  constitution  of 
1791  had  made  the  single  condition  of  natural- 
ization:  "those  who — being  born  out  of  the 
kingdom,       of       foreign     parents — reside     in 


242     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

France,  become  French  citizens  after  five 
years'  continued  residence  in  the  kingdom." 
The  seven-  and  nine-year  periods  for  office  for 
foreigners,  in  the  Constitution,  were  not  in 
harmony  with  this  twenty-one-year  period,  by 
which  thirty  years  were  required  after  the 
declaration  of  intention.  The  petitioners 
seemed  to  suppose  that  increase  of  population 
was  the  only  object  of  naturalization  laws.  It 
was  one  object,  but  not  the  only  one.  The 
committee  would  say:  'Tt  was  to  assert  the 
great  principle  of  expatriation,  and  the  right 
of  every  man  to  leave  the  country  of  his  birth 
for  the  one  of  his  choice."  Not  merely  the 
new  states,  but  many  of  the  old  ones  also, 
would  gladly  add  to  their  strength  and  wealth 
by  an  increase  of  their  numbers.  If  frauds 
were  practiced,  guard  against  them  by 
amendments.  Were  they  practiced  only  or 
chiefly  by  the  naturalized,  or  also  by  natives? 
The  committee  thought  it  advisable  to  col- 
lect all  naturalization  provisions  into  one  gen- 
eral law,  and  believed  that  the  bill  it  pre- 
sented, if  adopted,  would  carry  out  the  in- 
junctions of  the  Constitution,  preserve  the 
rights  of  aliens,  and  guard  against  all  just 
grounds  of  abuse  and  complaint.^^ 

The  bill  that  the  committee  presented  con- 

2»  (468)  House  Reports  of  Committees,  Twenty-eighth  Congress, 
Second   Session,   No.   87. 


AGGRESSIVE  NATIVE  AMERICANISM       243 

tained  ten  sections.  It  was  chiefly  a  re-enact- 
ment of  the  existing  law,  with  some  addition- 
al provisions  to  remedy  minor  defects,  to 
make  fraudulent  practices  more  difficult,  and 
to  secure  the  punishment  of  fraud.  Any  alien 
free  white  was  to  be  admitted  a  citizen  of 
the  United  States  in  the  mode  and  on  the 
conditions  given,  and  not  otherwise.  He 
must  declare  on  oath  in  open  court  before  a 
supreme,  superior,  district,  or  circuit  court  of 
a  state  or  territory,  or  a  circuit  or  district 
court  of  the  United  States,  at  least  two  years 
before  his  admission,  his  intention  to  become 
a  citizen,  and  to  renounce  his  foreign  alle- 
giance. Two  years  later,  and  after  five  years' 
residence  in  the  United  States,  he  might  be 
admitted  a  citizen,  provided  he  took  an  oath 
that  he  would  support  the  Constitution  and 
did  renounce  any  other  allegiance  and  any 
title;  exhibited  a  certificate  of  his  declaration 
of  intention,  and  took  an  oath  that  he  was 
the  person  named  therein ;  furnished  two  wit- 
nesses, citizens,  who  should  swear  that  they 
were  well  acquainted  with  him  and  believed 
him  to  be  the  person  named  in  the  certificate, 
and  that  he  had  resided  five  years  in  the 
United  States  and  one  year  in  that  state;  and 
proved  that  he  was  of  good  moral  character, 
attached   to   the   principles   of   the    Constitu- 


244     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

tioii,  and  well  disposed  to  the  good  order 
and  happiness  of  the  country.  The  full  par- 
ticulars of  his  certificate,  residence,  names  of 
witnesses,  etc.,  must  be  stated  in  the  record. 
Otherwise  it  should  not  be  competent  for  any 
court  to  grant  a  certificate  of  naturalization 
or  pronounce  a  judgment  of  naturalization, 
nor  should  the  person  be  deemed  a  citizen  of 
the    United   States. 

Any  minor  living  in  the  United  States  for 
two  years  before  he  was  twenty-one,  and 
thereafter,  might,  after  becoming  twenty-one 
and  after  five  years  of  residence,  be  admitted 
without  the  previous  declaration  of  intention, 
provided  that  he  made  the  declaration  at  the 
time  of  his  admission,  and  declared  and 
proved  that  it  had  been  for  three  years  his 
bona  fide  intention  to  become  a  citizen,  and 
complied  with  all  the  other  requirements. 
When  any  alien  died  after  having  declared 
his  intention,  his  widow  and  children,  dwell- 
ing in  the  United  States,  should  be  considered 
citizens  upon  taking  the  oath  and  renouncing 
their  former  allegiance.  Minor  children  of 
naturalized  citizens  dwelling  in  the  United 
States  should  be  considered  citizens.  The 
children  of  free  white  citizens,  born  out  of 
the  United  States  during  a  temporary  absence 
of  their  parents,  should  be  deemed  native  citi- 
zens. 


AGGRESSIVE  NATIVE  AMERICANISM       345 

Every  court  of  record  of  any  state,  having 
common  law^  jurisdiction  and  a  seal  and  clerk, 
should  be  considered  a  district  court  within 
the  meaning  of  the  act.  Any  declaration  be- 
fore the  passage  of  the  act  made  bona  fide 
before  the  clerk  of  an  authorized  court  should 
be  held  as  valid  as  if  made  before  the  court. 
Clerks  of  courts  should  grant  certificates  of 
declaration,  and  receive  a  fee  of  one  dollar 
each  for  granting  and  recording  them ;  also 
a  fee  of  two  dollars  for  a  naturalization  certifi- 
cate to  be  paid  before  the  naturalization  was 
allowed.  Fraudulent  application  or  naturali- 
zation was  to  be  a  high  misdemeanor,  and  be 
punished  by  a  fine  of  not  more  than  one 
thousand  dollars,  or  by  imprisonment  of  not 
more  than  six  months,  or  by  both.  Anyone 
knowingly  aiding  in  the  fraud  was  liable  to 
one-half  of  the  specified  penalties.  A  fraudu- 
lent naturalization  was  to  be  void.  It  should 
be  the  duty  of  a  district  attorney  learning  of 
fraud  to  file  an  information;  scire  faeias 
should  then  issue  to  show  why  the  naturali- 
zation should  not  be  null ;  and  if  it  was  shown 
by  confession,  default,  or  jury  trial  that  the 
naturalization  had  been  procured  by  fraud, 
it  was  to  be  the  duty  of  the  court  to  adjudge 
it  to  be  null  and  void.  Knowingly  and  wil- 
fully using  or  permitting  the  use  of  any  cer- 


246     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

tificate  of  declaration  or  of  naturalization,  ex- 
cept for  the  proper  person  and  lawfully, 
should  be  a  misdemeanor,  liable  to  one-half 
of  the  before-mentioned  penalties.  All  other 
acts  and  parts  of  acts  respecting  naturaliza- 
tion were  to  be  repealed.^"  This  bill  was  re- 
ferred, after  two  readings,  to  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  House  on  the  State  of  the 
Union,  and  had  not  come  up  for  considera- 
tion when  the  session  and  the  Congress  ended 
a  month  later. 

'"  Congressional    Globe,    Twenty-eighth    Congress,    Second    Ses- 
sion,  Appendix,    130;   January   31,    1S45. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

THE  PERIOD  OF  AGGRESSIVE  NATIVE  AMERI- 
CANISM (CONTINUED) 

In  July,  1845,  ^  Native  American  national 
convention  was  held  at  Philadelphia,  with 
delegates  present  from  nine  states.  It  set 
forth  its  principles  in  a  number  of  resolu- 
tions, formally  took  the  name  "Native  Ameri- 
cans," and  sent  out  an  address  called  "The 
Second  Declaration  of  Independence."  The 
resolutions  declared  that  they  could  give 
their  suffrages  only  to  persons  boni  on  the 
soil,  and  favored  twenty-one  years'  residence 
for  foreigners  thereafter  naturalized.  They 
would  kindly  receive  persons  who  came  to 
America,  and  give  them  every  privilege  ex- 
cept ofifice  and  suffrage. 

Archer,  during  the  next  session  of  the 
Senate,  presented  thirty  memorials  for 
"twenty-one  years"  legislation.  Three- 
fourths  of  them  were  from  Pennsylvania. 
They  were  referred,  and  no  other  action  was 
taken  on  the  subject. 

In  the  House  the  naturalization  question 
attained  much  greater  prominence.  A  series 
of  resolutions  of  the  Massachusetts  Legis- 
247 


248     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

lature  was  presented  early  in  the  session,  and 
the  question  of  its  reference  brought  on  a 
prolonged  debate. ^^  According  to  the  reso- 
lutions, experience  had  clearly  shown  that 
the  naturalization  laws  were  loose  and  defect- 
ive, affording  opportunity  for  gross  frauds, 
destructive  to  the  rights  and  morals  of  the 
citizens  and  the  stability  of  their  institutions. 
The  rights,  interests,  and  morals  of  the 
people  demanded  an  immediate  and  thorough 
revision  of  the  naturalization  laws.  The  legis- 
lature regarded  it  as  the  imperative  duty  of 
Congress  so  to  amend  those  laws.  While  a 
liberal  and  just  policy  should  be  adopted 
toward  foreigners  who  were  in  the  country 
or  might  come  there,  the  rights  and  privileges 
of  their  own  countrymen  should  be  kept  in- 
violate and  the  ballot  box  be  permanently 
guarded  against  improper  influence.  The 
solid  Whig  delegation  of  nine  members  that 
Massachusetts  had  in  the  House,  and  her  sen- 
ators, were  especially  requested  to  use  their 
utmost  exertions  forthwith  to  procure 
amendments  in  accord  with  the  views  ex- 
pressed.^^ 

Levin,   for  some  time   thereafter   a   striking 
Native  American  figure  in  House  or  Senate,  ob- 

^1  This    debate    began     December     15,    and    was    continued    on 
December    17,    18,    29,    and    30. 

"'-  House    Journal,    Twenty-ninth    Congress,    First    Session,    96. 


NATIVE   AiMERICANISM    (CONTINUED)     249 

jected  to  referring  the  bill  to  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee on  the  ground  of  established  usage  or 
privilege  of  the  House,  which  (he  said)  se- 
cured to  a  measure  full  and  fair  discussion  on 
its  merits  from  a  committee  that  was  not  pre- 
judiced against  its  main  principle.  The  doc- 
trine was  clearly  laid  down  that  those  opposed 
to  the  main  principle  of  a  bill  were  not  to 
be  appointed  its  judges.  Reference  to  a  com- 
mittee known  to  be  hostile  was  tantamount 
to  a  rejection,  and  that  was  prejudgment  that 
would  suit  a  sultan.  The  eyes  of  the  nation 
were  turned  on  the  House.  The  people  loved 
this  child  of  theirs,  "monster"  as  it  had  been 
called.  They  expected  consideration  for  it, 
and  Congress  could  not  grant  a  smaller  act  of 
justice.  Giddings  inquired  whether  Levin 
had  not  always  voted  at  that  session  to 
smother  petitions  against  slavery  of  eighty 
thousand  native-born  Americans.  Brodhead 
questioned  where  there  was  evidence  of  any 
disposition  on  the  part  of  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee to  smother  the  matter.  There  was 
none  on  which  to  found  so  offensive  an  impu- 
tation. Why  let  the  American  party  select 
a  committee?  Must  the  House  dignify  by  a 
report  of  a  select  committee  what  but  six  out 
of  two  hundred  and  twenty-three  representa- 
tives of  the  whole  American  people  professed 


250     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

to  advocate?  So  very  small  a  minority  must 
be  treated  as  other  minorities  were  treated. 
How  was  it  to  be  expected  that  the  majority 
would  endorse  the  opposing  view?  He  called 
for  the  previous  question  to  save  time  from 
useless  discussion,  but  withdrew  it  at  the  re- 
quest of  Rathbun,  chairman  of  the  Judiciary 
Committee. 

Rathbun  favored  granting  the  request  of 
Levin.  If  the  memorial  was  sent  to  his  com- 
mittee, he  should  move  to  discharge  it  at 
the  first  meeting.  Let  the  few  there  have  the 
nursing  of  this  new  and  original  thought  of 
theirs  as  to  naturalization,  and  present  the 
bantling  when  sufificiently  grown.  Let  them 
show  that  the  previous  course  of  the  nation 
was  all  wrong,  and  that  a  foreigner  should 
not  vote  until  the  infant  born  on  the  day  of 
his  arrival  voted  at  his  side.  Maclay  re- 
gretted Rathbun's  willingness.  Two  years 
before  he  would  have  granted  willingly  the 
reference  asked,  on  account  of  the  promi- 
nence in  the  public  discussions  that  the  subject 
seemed  to  occupy.  There  was  a  great  change 
since,  and  the  public  judgment  had  been  pro- 
nounced. The  miserable  Native  American 
movement  no  longer  excited  the  regard  of 
an  intelligent  community.  It  never  had  any 
strength  except  in  large  cities,  and  could  not 


NATIVE   AMERICANISM    (CONTINUED)     251 

stand  country  atmosphere. ^^  Let  the  Judi- 
ciary Committee  examine  the  subject  patient- 
ly, and  report  showing  the  sheer  absurdity  of 
any  change  in  the  system  that  had  prevailed 
from  the  foundation  of  the  government  and 
was  the  cause  of  so  large  a  part  of  the  coun- 
try's prosperity.  McDowell  was  utterly  op- 
posed to  twenty-one  years,  but  had  no  objec- 
tion to  revision  for  the  more  effectual  pro- 
tection of  the  ballot  box.  But  if  the  object 
was  to  get  up  political  excitement  in  the 
House,  and  send  out  nourishment  to  a  party 
fast  dwindling  into  insignificance,  he  would 
vote  to  table  the  memorial.  Payne  (Ala.)  be- 
lieved the  present  movement  was  one  to  get 
up  a  faction  in  the  House  such  as  the  Anti- 
Mason  and  Abolition  factions,  and  hoped  for 
a  merited  rebuke  for  it.  Yancey  (Ala.)  be- 
lieved it  ever  the  practice  to  refer  a  matter 
to  its  friends,  and  favored  a  special  commit- 
tee to  meet  the  matter  fairly. 

Others  thought  that,  though  the  Native 
Americans  were  few  and  feeble,  yet  they  were 
entitled  to  courtesy  and  a  fair  hearing. 
There  was  not  a  native  American  on  the  Ju- 

*'  Later,  another  speaker,  either  John  W.  Davis  (Ind.)  or 
Jefferson  Davis,  declared  that  the  Native  American  party  was  gen- 
erated by  the  corruption  of  the  great  cities,  and  could  not  live 
in  the  pure  atmosphere  of  the  country — that  nobody  had  ever 
heard  of  a  meeting  of  Native  Americans  in  a  country  schoolhouse. 
Native  Americans  were  but  a  wing  of  the  Whigs.  Open  doora 
to   immigration  was  the  true  policy   of  the  government. 


252     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

diciary  Committee,  and  there  could  not  be 
even  a  minority  report  from  it.  What  harm 
could  a  select  committee  do — there  had  been 
a  bill  and  a  report  at  the  last  session,  but  no 
action?  These  measures  marked  the  in- 
cipient stage  of  making  a  great  alien  class. 
The  Native  American  party  had  its  birth  in  a 
storm — one  of  the  most  wretched  and  dis- 
graceful scenes  ever  seen  in  Philadelphia — ■ 
and  was  everywhere  declared  to  be  seeking 
the  offices  that  were  held  by  the  foreign-born. 
The  question  was  entitled  to  no  more  respect 
than  Abolition.^'*  The  attempt  to  divert  the 
reference  was  an  acknowledgment  that  they 
were  seeking  to  throw  firebrands,  and  to  send 
out  an  inflammatory  report  to  make  converts 
for  Native  Americanism. 

Levin  replied  that  so  strong  and  attractive 
a  principle  as  that  of  the  Native  Americans 
yet  promised  a  majority  of  the  House  and 
the  country.  In  fifteen  years  the  native-born 
would  be  in  a  minority.  Americans  were 
shot  down  in  Philadelphia  on  the  plea  that 
they  were  on  the  Irish  quarter,  and  that  no 
Americans  were  allowed  there.  They  were 
charged  falsely  with  being  "burners  of 
churches."  They  had  saved  a  church  at  the 
risk  of  their  lives,  and  had  destroyed  none. 
They  were  neither  bigots  nor  fanatics. 

**  This  was  from  Cliipman,   a  Democrat   from  Michigan. 


NATIVE   AMERICANISM    (CONTINUED)      253 

Bayly  (Va.)  regarded  the  resolutions  as  a 
bold  attempt  to  interfere  with  the  ac- 
knowledged rights  of  states.  The  general 
government  had  no  jurisdiction  in  the  matter 
and  could  not  control  suffrage.  They  could 
do  no  more  than  to  deprive  the  foreigner  of 
his  right  to  the  habeas  corpus,  to  hold  prop- 
erty, and  other  rights  pertaining  to  citizen- 
ship. His  right  to  suffrage  was  exclusively 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  states.  The 
measure  proposed  would  deter  men  of  prop- 
erty and  character  from  coming,  but  would 
hardly  keep  out  paupers.  He  could  not  con- 
sent to  take  a  great  constitutional  question 
from  the  law  committee  and  refer  it  to  a  special 
committee. 

Bayly's  constitutional  argument  ignored 
the  important  fact  that  the  states  had,  very 
generally  and  largely  as  a  matter  of  course, 
made  United  States  citizenship  a  qualification 
for  suffrage,  and  that  perhaps  in  most  of  them 
a  change  of  opinion  as  to  their  legal  right 
would  be  necessary  before  that  requirement 
could  be  removed.  It  followed  that  a  federal 
law  hindering  naturalization  would  act  effect- 
ively to  deprive  the  majority  of  foreigners 
of  their  rights  to  the  suffrage.  To  be  sure, 
some  states  were  then  asserting,  and  perhaps 
all    would    today    acknowledge,    their     legal 


254     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

power  to  overcome  this  difficulty ;  but  most 
states  then  thought  it  to  be  either  illegal  or 
unwise  to  take  such  action.  So  long  and  so 
far  as  this  opinion  prevailed,  Congress  had 
actual  control  of  the  situation.  A  remarkable 
fact  to  notice,  also,  is  that  Bayly  did  not  claim 
for  the  states  any  control  over  the  right  to 
hold  property.  I  think  that  the  explanation 
of  this  must  be  found  in  the  federal  owner- 
ship and  control  of  the  sale  of  the  public 
lands,  and  the  importance  assumed  by  the 
public  lands  among  the  possible  property 
holdings  of  aliens.  In  other  words,  the  prop- 
erty right  then  meant  to  an  alien  the  right  to 
buy  public  lands. 

Stephen  A.  Douglas  said  that  naturaliza- 
tion conferred  the  right  of  citizenship,  which 
included  the  rights  of  protection,  access  to 
the  courts  in  time  of  war,  holding  real  estate, 
inheritance,  and  various  other  rights.  The 
federal  convention  had  discussed  the  matter 
of  fixing  uniform  rules  of  voting,  and  aban- 
doned it.  The  differences  were  too  many  and 
too  great  to  reconcile  or  remove,  and  it  be- 
came necessary  to  split  or  compromise.  The 
right  of  each  state  to  qualify  voters  had 
never  been  questioned.'^   The  states  defied  and 

2*  A  very  inadequate  statement.  An  absolute  right,  not  sub- 
ject to  the  limitations  of  the  naturalization  laws,  had  been  denied 
often    in    Congress   and    elsewhere. 


NATIVE   AMERICANISM    (CONTINUED)     255 

derided  the  attempts  of  the  Native  Americans 
to  control  the  suffrage  by  naturahzation.  The 
Judiciary  Committee  of  the  last  Congress  had 
offered  a  bill  to  remedy  frauds.  Also  there 
was  now  a  different  committee.  If  there  had 
been  any  fault  before,  it  was  that  of  Congress 
rather  than  of  the  committee. 

In  closing  the  debate,  two  members  de- 
fended the  Whig  party  from  responsibility 
for  Native  Americanism.  It  had  arisen  in 
Democratic  districts  in  the  outskirts  of  Phila- 
delphia. Democratic  loss  of  the  Irish  vote 
had  started  it.  The  party  was  of  no  practical 
use  to  anybody  but  Democrats.  Whig  Ohio 
had  denounced  it  in  resolutions  of  the  legis- 
lature. That  it  had  sprung  from  the  Demo- 
cratic party  as  its  source  could  be  demon- 
strated. The  debate  was  ended  only  with  the 
previous  question.  The  resolutions  were 
sent  to  the  Judiciary  Committee  December 
30,   i845.3« 

The  committee  presented  an  emphatic  re- 
port on  the  loth  of  February.  They  had 
waited  some  weeks  for  proofs  of  the  state- 
ments in  the  resolutions,  but  none  had  been 
offered  them.  The  time  of  the  resolutions  had 
been  least  favorable  for  an  unprejudiced  ex- 
amination of  the  truth  of  the  matters,  owing 

"  Congressional  Globe,  Twenty-ninth  Congress,  First  Session, 
67-74.    77-82,    105-7,     1 13-18. 


256     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

to  the  great  excitement  in  the  election  of  1844. 
Complaint  had  naturally  followed  defeat.  It 
was  difficult  to  perceive  dangers  from  the 
naturalization  laws  or  from  the  votes  of 
naturalized  persons.  The  committee  under- 
stood the  resolutions  to  complain  only  of 
looseness  of  the  laws  and  opportunity  for 
fraud  upon  them.  The  judge  and  the  clerk 
were  in  this,  the  same  as  in  their  other  duties, 
under  a  legal  and  moral  responsibility  to  ad- 
minister the  laws  honestly  and  justly.  A  vio- 
lation of  this  duty  was  a  high  crime.  Wit- 
nesses were  all  liable  for  perjury.  The  com- 
mittee was  unable  to  devise  any  greater 
penalties  for  perjury  in  harmony  with  the 
humane  spirit  of  the  age.  It  would  be  re- 
garded as  barbarous  and  inhumane  to  forfeit 
life.  They  were  constrained  to  believe  that 
the  naturalization  laws  were  sufficiently 
guarded  and  sufficiently  stringent.  Some 
thought  that  the  period  of  probation  should 
be  twenty-one  years.  The  committee  thought 
differently  and  were  sustained  by  experience. 
The  longer  the  probation,  the  greater  was 
the  inducement  to  fraud.  It  was  impolitic  to 
perpetuate  the  character  of  alien  longer  than 
was  absolutely  necessary.  If  all  foreigners 
who  had  come  for  twenty  years  were  still 
aliens,  and  excluded  from  all  rights  in  soil  and 


NATIVE   AMERICANISM    (CONTINUED)     257 

government,  consider  the  danger,  especially 
in  case  of  war  with  England.  Her  siil)jects, 
embittered  and  denied  rights,  could  not  aid 
the  United  States.  Nor  could  or  would  the 
United  States  protect  aliens.  It  was  wise  and 
prudent  to  Americanize  the  whole  class  as 
speedily  as  possible.  The  reasons  for  liberal 
naturalization  laws  still  existed  in  all  their 
force.  They  ought  not  to  be  disregarded, 
nor  ought  any  disadvantageous  or  repulsive 
restrictions  to  be  added  to  the  laws.  When 
the  population  became  dense,  labor  cheap, 
employment  scarce,  then,  and  not  till  then, 
would  it  be  necessary  to  inquire  as  to  a 
change.  The  states  controlled  suffrage,  and 
had  the  remedy  for  evils  in  themselves.  They 
could,  but  ought  not  to,  proscribe  naturalized 
citizens.  The  committee  had  no  knowledge 
of  frauds  nor  evidence  concerning  them. 
They  would  not  look  among  ignorant  aliens 
for  perpetrators  of  frauds.  These  might  be 
instruments  in  the  hands  of  unprincipled  citi- 
zens. They  recommended  a  resolution :  that 
no  alteration  of  the  naturalization  laws  is 
necessary  for  the  preservation  of  rights,  in- 
terests, and  morals  of  the  people,  or  for  the 
guarding  of  the  ballot  box  from  every  im- 
proper influence.^" 

^■^  (489)   House  Reports  of   Committees.   Twenty-ninth   Congress, 
First   Session,   No.   231. 


2S8     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

Two  native  Americans,  Levin  and  Camp- 
bell (N.  Y.),  replied  later  to  some  of  the 
points  in  the  report.  Levin's  speech  was 
made  in  connection  with  a  motion  of  his  to 
amend  a  bill  for  raising  a  regiment  of  mount- 
ed riflemen  by  providing  that  the  officers  and 
soldiers  should  all  be  Americans  by  birth. 
He  referred  to  what  he  called  the  effort  to 
make  it  appear  that  the  states  possessed  the 
power  to  create  citizens  of  the  United  States. 
The  Judiciary  Committee's  report  had  re- 
ferred them  to  state  laws  for  every  right, 
civil  and  political,  that  an  alien  could  possess. 
In  fact,  the  federal  system  was  purely  politi- 
cal, and  naturalization  must  confer  rights 
purely  political — suffrage  and  office-holding. 
The  Constitution  gave  states  the  unquestion- 
able right  to  decide  on  what  terms  American 
citizens  could  vote.  But  if  they  could  grant 
to  aliens  suffrage  for  presidential  electors, 
they  could  also  grant  eligibility  to  the  presi- 
dency to  aliens.  No  probation  would  be 
necessary  if  naturalization  were  designed  only 
to  confer  rights  relative  to  property,  or  other 
civil  and  personal  rights  of  residents  of  states. 
If  the  states  controlled  the  suffrage,  and  did 
not  discriminate  between  aliens  and  citizens, 
no  certificate  of  naturalization  would  be 
necessary,   no  record    of    alienage    could  be 


NATIVE   AMERICANISM    (CONTINUED)      259 

traced,  and  the  functions  of  government 
would  come  entirely  within  the  power  of 
foreigners,  in  flagrant  violation  of  the  Consti- 
tution. Changes  in  the  period  of  probation 
showed  conclusively  that  the  great  and  fun- 
damental right  of  naturalization  was  suffrage, 
and  suffrage  only.  Five  or  fourteen  years' 
residence,  knowledge,  good  character,  were 
not  required  to  hold  property,  fight,  or  act  in 
civil  relations.  The  very  idea  of  probation 
applied  to  the  ballot  box,  and  the  practice,  ex- 
cept in  Illinois  and  Michigan,  sustained  this 
view.  The  absurdity  of  the  report  on  that 
point  was  self-evident.  It  was  absurd  to 
prove  the  non-existence  of  a  law  by  its  vio- 
lation. If  the  states  could  admit  aliens  to 
vote,  the  Constitution  was  a  dead  letter.  If, 
as  they  were  told,  the  denial  of  naturaliza- 
tion and  the  suffrage  would  create  discontent, 
cabal  and  insurrection,  they  should  exclude 
foreigners  totally.  In  twenty-one  years  all 
distinct  interests,  jealousy,  and  rivalry  would 
cease,  and  the  foreign  party  would  be  ex- 
tinguished. No  other  country  on  the  globe 
admitted  the  foreigner,  or  even  its  own  peo- 
ple, to  rights  of  sovereignty.^^ 

Campbell    declared    that    alien    voting    in 
Michigan  and  Illinois  was  a  plain  violation  of 

'*  Congressional    Globe,    Twenty-ninth    Congress,    First    Session, 
605. 


26o     xNATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

the  spirit  of  the  Constitution.  The  first  con- 
stitution of  New  York  (1777)  gave  the  state 
power  to  pass  general  laws  for  naturaliza- 
tion, but  the  state  never  passed  any  such  law, 
and  passed  only  one  special  act  naturalizing 
by  name  about  one  hundred  persons.  They 
had  not  thought  it  was  wise  to  open  wide  the 
door  to  citizenship.^^ 

The  real  question  in  dispute  between 
Campbell  and  the  committee  was  as  to 
whether  in  making  the  Constitution  a  distinct 
federal  citizenship  was  established,  and  the 
various  state  citizenships  merged  into  it,  to 
the  extent  at  least  of  all  of  their  political 
rights.  In  that  case,  unquestionably,  the 
right  of  suffrage  must  be  derived  from  this 
new  citizenship,  and  could  never  be  extended 
beyond  it  while  the  Constitution,  in  letter 
or  in  interpretation,  remained  unchanged 
and  retained  its  controlling  force. 

In  this  view  of  the  case,  the  federal  citizen- 
ship from  which  suffrage  derived  attached  to 
former  state  citizens  by  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution.  Thereafter  it  could  be  gained 
only  by  birth  or  by  naturalization.  Birth  any- 
where within  the  United  States  wrought  a 
uniform  result  in  this  respect,  and  the  effect 
of  birth   abroad   would   be   regulated   by   the 

39  Loc.  cit.,  6ig. 


NATIVE   AMERICANISM    (CONTINUED)      261 

federal  naturalization  laws.  The  power  of 
naturalization  was  confided  wholly  to  the 
general  government.  Thus  the  states  no 
longer  had  anything  to  say  as  to  who  became 
citizens,  while  they  had  full  control  of  the 
terms  on  which  citizens  could  vote,  subject 
only  to  the  constitutional  requirement  that 
the  citizens  of  each  state  have  the  privileges 
of  citizens  in  the  several  states. 

By  the  process  described  the  idea  of  state 
citizenship  must  have  lost  so  much  of  its  con- 
tent as  to  change  its  character  or  destroy  it 
entirely.  Two  courses  would  remain  by 
which  the  idea  might  survive  in  a  limited 
sense.  It  might  be  applied  to  distinguish 
those  federal  citizens  who  resided  in  the  state 
from  other  federal  citizens,  leaving  all  other 
persons  in  the  state  to  be  regarded  as  aliens 
from  every  point  of  view.  In  this  case  there 
would  scarcely  be  contrast  enough  to  support 
a  very  definite  idea  of  two  citizenships.  Or  its 
application  might  be  extended  to  include  un- 
naturalized foreigners  in  the  exercise  of  cer- 
tain rights  secured  to  them  through  residence 
in  the  state,  in  which  case  the  content  of  the 
idea  would  be  reduced  to  the  sum  of  those 
alien  rights.  State  pride  could  be  depended 
upon  to  prevent  state  citizenship  from  being 
reduced    to    mean    so    little,    and    the    alter- 


262     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

native  would  involve  identifying  it  with  fed- 
eral citizenship. 

But  if  the  federal  citizenship  did  not  mo- 
nopolize the  suffrage  power,  and  the  states 
retained  the  right  to  make  voters,  of  any 
grade  at  all,  from  aliens,  the  presumption 
would  be  easy  and  natural  that  they  were 
not  excluded  from  granting  to  aliens  the  suf- 
frage for  members  of  the  lower  house  of  the 
legislature.  With  that  granted,  nothing  could 
prevent  the  entire  federal  suffrage  from  be- 
ing given  at  the  will  of  the  state.  That  would 
give  to  state  citizenship  ample  content,  and 
the  distinction  between  it  and  federal  citizen- 
ship would  be  forced  into  prominence. 

The  constitutional  provisions  are  that 
members  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
shall  be  chosen  "by  the  People  of  the  several 
States,"  having  "the  Qualifications  requisite 
for  Electors  of  the  most  numerous  Branch  of 
the  State  Legislature ;"  and  "Each  State  shall  ap- 
point in  such  manner  as  the  Legislature  thereof 
may  direct,  a  Number  of  presidential  Elec- 
tors." The  only  restrictions  are  in  the  one 
case  that  the  "State  shall  appoint,"  and  in 
the  other  that  elections  shall  be  by  "the  Peo- 
ple of  the  several  States."  If  these  terms 
were  construed  abstractly  in  the  light  of 
strong  notions  of  allegiance,  or  of  the  con- 


NATIVE   AMERICANISM    (CONTINUED)     263 

trast  between  aliens  and  citizens,  they  would 
be  found  to  warrant  Campbell's  conclusions; 
but,  when  considered  practically  in  a  new 
country,  where  aliens  were  numerous  or  set- 
tlers were  greatly  desired,  and  where  ideas  of 
individual  liberty  had  dethroned  perpetual  al- 
legiance, foreigners  would  clearly  be  "People 
of  the  several  States."  Perhaps  nothing  short 
of  an  explicit  exclusion,  such  as  was  made  in 
regard  to  the  presidency,  could  have  kept 
them  from  the  suffrage  wherever  the  terms 
of  naturalization  were  thought  to  be  harsh. 

Levin  spoke  in  the  next  Congress  on  a  bill 
intended  to  prevent  the  crowded  condition 
of  emigrant  ships.  He  was  opposed  to  the 
whole  system  of  importing  voters,  and  at- 
tributed it  to  party  policy  intended  to  weaken 
the  Native  American  party.  He  should  move 
to  amend  the  title  to,  "A  bill  to  accommodate 
the  paupers  and  criminals  of  Europe  in  their 
migrations  to  the  United  States."  The  nat- 
uralization laws  were  obsolete  in  principle, 
object,  and  tendency,  and  most  destructive  in 
practice.  They  had  been  designed  to  adopt 
a  class  of  aliens  qualified  by  morals,  manners, 
and  education  to  aid  in  expanding  the  country 
and  consolidating  the  new  government.  But 
Europe  no  longer  drove  out  her  valuable 
and    gifted    sons — instead    of    them    she    was 


264     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

sending  over  famine  victims.  He  would  feed 
them,  but  not  rally  to  the  polls  that  living 
mass  of  moral  putrescence  and  pitiable  igno- 
rance. When  the  Native  American  vote 
equaled  the  foreign  vote,  the  question  w^ould 
be  settled.^*^ 

The  question  of  pauper  and  criminal  immi- 
grants continued  to  be  agitated  throughout 
the  Native  American  and  Know-Nothing 
periods,  and  has  begun  to  be  solved  only  in 
much  more  recent  times.  Memorials  brought 
the  subject  before  both  House  and  Senate  in 
the  spring  of  1847.  The  Senate  at  length 
discharged  its  committee  from  consideration 
of  it,  but  printed  information  from  the  sec- 
retary of  state  showed  shipments  of  these 
classes  from  Switzerland  and  Germany,  and 
probably  of  paupers  from  Ireland. ^^  A  bill 
was  introduced  in  the  House  to  prevent  the 
importation  of  these  classes,  but  it  came  to 
naught.  In  1850  the  New  Orleans  Board  of 
Health  petitioned  Congress  to  tax  alien  passen- 
gers arriving  in  the  United  States.  In  response 
to  this  petition,  the  House  Judiciary  Commit- 
tee reported  a  bill   for  such  a  tax,  the  pro- 

*°  Congressional  Globe,  Twenty-ninth  Congress,  Second  Ses- 
sion,   Appendix,    385. 

*^  (492)  Senate  Journal,  Twenty-ninth  Congress,  Second  Ses- 
sion, 232;  (496)  House  Journal,  468;  (499)  House  Documents, 
Twenty-ninth   Congress,    Second   Session,   No.    54. 


NATIVE   AMERICANISM    (CONTINUED)     265 

ceeds  to  go  to  authorized   state   officers   for 
eleemosynary  purposes.'*^ 

In  1851-52  a  number  of  petitions  were  re- 
ferred in  both  houses,  and  again  the  Senate 
committee  was  discharged  from  considering 
them  further.^^  In  1855  a  resolution  of  the 
Rhode  Island  Legislature  called  for  a  law  to 
prohibit  the  introduction  of  foreign  paupers 
and  criminals.  It  was  sent  to  the  governors 
of  the  other  states  for  presentation  to  their 
legislatures  as  well  as  to  Congress. ^^  The 
Senate  debated  a  resolution  of  inquiry  calling 
upon  the  president  for  information  as  to  the 
transportation  of  foreign  convicts  and  pau- 
pers into  the  United  States,  and  the  agency 
of  governments  and  municipal  authorities 
therein ;  the  voluntary  immigration  of  those 
classes  into  the  United  States;  and  the  leg- 
islation necessary.  Cooper  (Pa.),  who  in- 
troduced the  resolution,  said  that  friendly 
nations  had  no  right  to  make  of  the  United 
States  a  penal  colony;  yet  there  was  scarcely 
an   emigrant   ship   not   freighted   partly   with 

*"  (492)  Senate  Journal,  Twehty-ninth  Congress,  Second  Ses- 
sion, 158,  216;  (495)  Senate  Documents,  Twenty-ninth  Congress, 
Second  Session,   No.    i6i. 

**  (610)  Senate  Journal,  Thirty-second  Congress,  First  Session, 
42,  93,  117,  219,  22s,  243,  274,  420,  436;  (632)  House  Journal, 
Thirty-second  Congress,   First   Session,    103,   237,   280,   292,   327,   385. 

**  (745)  Senate  Journal.  Thirty-third  Congress,  Second  Session, 
293;  (772)  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  Thirty-third  Congress, 
Second  Session,  No.    19. 


266     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

that  kind  of  cargo.  The  evil  had  lately 
alarmingly  increased.  One  vessel  in  New 
York  had  recently  landed  one  hundred  and 
fifty  paupers,  and  fifteen  or  sixteen  convicts 
wearing  chains.  The  Sardinian  government 
had  recently  shipped  thirty-four  convicted 
criminals.  Some  years  before  two  hundred 
and  sixty  Hessian  convicts,  a  ship-load,  came 
to  Baltimore  with  manacles  and  fetters  still 
on  hands  and  feet.  The  mayor  detained  them 
and  wrote  the  secretary  of  state,  who  replied 
that  there  was  no  law  to  prevent  their  land^ 
ing.  He  gave  figures  to  show  that  the  for- 
eign-born paupers  in  the  United  States  in 
1850  were  over  two  thousand  more  than  the 
paupers  of  native  birth. 

Brodhead  replied  that  it  was  easier  to  make 
a  speech  than  to  introduce  a  bill  to  meet  the 
difficulty  that  would  be  conformable  to  the 
Constitution.  Cooper  had  not  told  the  rem- 
edy.^°  The  states  had  authority  and  had 
acted.  New  York  taxed  every  foreigner,  and 
exacted  security  from  ship-owners  that  immi- 
grants would  not  become  a  charge.  Where 
was  the  jurisdiction  in  Congress?  He  was 
opposed  to  immigration,  but  did  not  know 
how  to  frame  a  bill  not  in  conflict  with  state 
authority,    state    rights,    and    state    jurisdic- 

*^  Cooper  replied  that  the  resolution  showed  a  practical  purpose. 


NATIVE   AMERICANISM    (CONTINUED)     267 

tion.'*^  A  little  later,  Jones  (Tenn.)  submitted 
a  resolution  for  consideration,  in  substance 
as  follows :  Whereas,  The  Constitution  con- 
fers on  Congress  the  power  to  establish  a 
uniform  rule  of  naturalization,  and  is  silent 
as  to  the  exercise  of  any  power  over  the  sub- 
ject of  emigration;  and  Whereas,  The  Consti- 
tution declares  that  the  powers  not  delegated 
to  the  United  States  nor  prohibited  to  the 
states  are  reserved  to  the  states  or  to  the  people ; 
Resolved,  That  Congress  has  no  power  to  pass 
any  law  regulating  or  controlling  immigration 
into  any  states  or  territories.  The  power  to  estab- 
lish necessary  rules  belongs  to  the  states  or  to  the 
people.  Each  state  may  determine  for  itself 
the  evils  arising  from  criminal  and  pauper  im- 
migration, and  apply  such  remedy  as  its  wis- 
dom may  suggest  or  its  safety  demand. ^^ 

In  the  House  this  question  culminated  in  a 
struggle  to  secure  the  passage  of  a  bill  re- 
ported by  Wentworth  from  the  Committee  on 
Commerce.  Its  opponents  succeeded  in  hold- 
ing it  back  until  the  very  close  of  the  session 
(March  3,  1855).  Appeals  were  made  to 
withdraw  it,  and  charges  that  it  had  been 
sprung  upon  the  House,  although  the  bill  had 

■"  (745)  Senate  Journal.  Thirty-third  Congress,  Second  Session, 
151,  164;  Congressional  Globe,  Thirty-third  Congress,  Second  Ses- 
sion,   388-91;   January    25,    1855. 

*'  Congressional  Globe,  Thirty-third  Congress,  Second  Session, 
783;    February    17,    1855. 


268     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

been  in  print  for  two  months.  Breckinridge 
would  not  discuss  the  question  of  the  power 
of  the  general  government  to  prevent  states 
from  aHowing  the  entrance  of  such  as  they 
chose,  but,  assuming  the  power,  there  was  a 
cruel  exercise  of  it  in  the  bill.  It  required 
every  human  being  desirous  of  coming  to  the 
United  States  to  procure  a  consul's  certificate 
that  he  was  not  lunatic,  poor,  or  blind,  and 
had  not  been  for  five  years.  At  first  it  had 
forbidden  bringing  the  blind  child  in  a  man's 
family,  but  it  had  been  patched  up  with  an 
amendment  so  that  it  did  not  apply  to  a  mem- 
ber of  a  family  with  sufficient  property  for 
its  support.  Any  person  who  was  the  whole 
support  of  a  family  and  was  old,  young,  rich,  or 
poor  was  repelled  if  blind.  He  wanted  no  prop- 
erty qualifications  for  residence  in  the  United 
States.  It  was  anti-American,  anti-republi- 
can, and  most  odious.  The  provision  to  ex- 
clude as  a  pauper  a  person  who  had  received 
aid  within  a  year  might  exclude  one  as  worthy 
as  the  man  who  had  millions.  He  knew  that 
the  proscriptive  feeling  of  which  he  regarded 
the  bill  as  one  of  the  fruits,  was  popular,  and 
was  sweeping  like  a  hurricane  from  one  end 
of  the  country  to  the  other;  but  it  conflicted 
with  fundamental  principles  of  the  govern- 
ment,  and  he   was   willing  to  oppose  it  and 


NATIVE   AMERICANISM    (CONTINUED)     269 

await  the  reaction  in  public  sentiment  that  he 
knew  would  come.  Wentworth  had  been 
beaten  by  the  Know-Nothing  political  society, 
and  might  have  introduced  that  bill  to  extin- 
guish Know-Nothingism. 

I  would  rather  trust  to  the  next  Congress,  full  of 
Know  Nothings,  as  it  is  likely  to  be,  to  pass  a  bill  upon 
this  subject,  than  to  take  this  bill,  patched  up  and  thrust 
upon  us  at  this  late  period  of  the  session,  with  a  view  to 
compromise  the  question. 

Wentworth  replied  that  the  bill  was  started 
before  he  had  much  knowledge  of  the  exist- 
ence of  the  new  ism.  His  state  maintained 
two  or  three  thousand  foreign  paupers.  The 
whole  seaboard  was  calling  for  the  law.  The 
Rhode  Island  Legislature  and  the  New  York 
Common  Council  favored  it.  The  Emigrant 
Society  of  New  York  had  been  urging  a  much 
more  restrictive  bill,  from  which  some  addi- 
tions to  this  were  taken.  The  Supreme  Court 
had  decided  that  Congress  had  power  to  regu- 
late the  whole  subject,  and  that  the  Massa- 
chusetts and  New  York  restriction  laws  were 
unconstitutional  and  void;  that  Congress 
could  control  the  introduction  of  foreigners, 
and  that  states  had  no  right  to  legislate  in 
any  way  to  contravene  their  introduction  or 
importation.  The  case  of  Gibbons  and 
Ogden,  and  the  passenger  cases  had  settled 


270     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

the  question.  Any  necessary  legislation  must 
come  from  Congress  alone.  The  passenger 
laws  since  1848  had  been  equally  restrictive 
and  penal.  No  property  qualification  was 
made ;  for  if  one  were  not  a  pauper,  he  could 
come  without  a  farthing.  To  a  request  to 
state  the  constitutional  clause  under  which 
power  was  claimed,  he  replied  that  it  was 
claimed  under  a  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  and  that  there  was  no  necessity  of 
going  into  the  constitutional  argument. 
Breckinridge  failed  in  an  efifort  to  get  the 
floor  to  offer  a  substitute,  and  Hendricks 
again  appealed  to  the  House  not  to  attempt 
to  pass  the  bill  at  that  late  hour.  It  was  laid 
on  the  table  by  a  vote  of  68  to  53.^^ 

The  next  year  ^^  the  House  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations  reported  back  a  bill  to 
prevent  the  introduction  into  the  United 
States  of  foreign  criminals,  paupers,  idiots, 
lunatics,  insane,  and  blind  persons.  In  a  long 
report  the  committee  discussed  the  evils  to 
be  remedied,  and  asserted  that  both  the  gen- 
eral and  state  governments  could  do  much 
to  stay  the  tide  of  immigration  of  that  unde- 
sirable population.     The  states  generally  had 

*8  (709)  House  Journal,  Thirty-third  Congress,  First  Session, 
1802;  (776)  ibid..  Second  Session,  137,  139.  574,  582;  Congres- 
sional Globe,  Thirty-third  Congress,  Second  Session,  158,  167,  174, 
970,    1180-1187. 

*»  August  16,   1856. 


NATIVE   AMERICANISM    (CONTINUED)     271 

been  as  much  remiss  as  Congress.  Sugges- 
tions were  made  as  to  how  they  could  enforce 
a  truly  American  policy  on  all  subjects.  The 
bill  did  not  get  beyond  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  House  on  the  State  of  the  Union. •'^" 

Resolutions  on  this  subject,  one  of  them 
from  the  legislature  of  Maine,  were  before 
different  Senate  committees  in  1857,  and  in 
the  House  in  1858;  but  nothing  more  impor- 
tant was  done  with  them  than  the  discharge 
of  some  committees  having  them   in  hand."^ 

In  February,  1841,  the  Senate  Committee  on 
Judiciary  reported  a  bill  to  declare  the  rights 
of  children  of  citizens  of  the  United  States 
born  abroad.  The  bill  was  considered  and 
passed  to  third  reading,  but  was  then  laid  on 
the  table. ^^  In  December.  1844.  notice  was 
given  in  the  House  of  leave  to  be  asked  to  in- 
troduce a  similar  bill.^'^  The  bill  of  the  House 
Judiciary  Committee  of  1845.  heretofore  de- 
scribed, provided  that  such  children  should 
be  deemed  native.^*"* 

■*"  (838)  House  Journal,  Thirty-fourth  Congress,-  First  Session, 
474,  631,  '839)  1491;  (870)  House  Reports  of  Committees.  Thirty- 
fourth  Congress,    h'irst   and   Second   .Sessions    359. 

*^  (917)  Senate  Journal.  Thirty-fifth  Congress,  First  Session, 
49,  360,  364,  488;  (934)  Senate  A' iscellaneous  Documents.  Thirty- 
fifth  Congress,  First  Session,  No.  12;  (940)  House  Journal.  131, 
197. 

'"  (374)  Senate  Journal,  Twenty-sixth  Congress,  Second  Ses- 
sion,   1 88,   214;   February    17  and   27,    1841. 

**  (462)  House  Journal.  Twenty-eig'ith  Congress,  Second  Ses- 
sion,   104. 

•*  See  p.  244. 


272     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

Three  years  later  Webster  was  given 
leave  to  bring  in  a  bill  to  extend  the  benefits 
of  the  naturalization  law  to  the  wives  and 
children  of  citizens.  The  bill  provided  that 
all  persons  then  or  thereafter  born  out  of  the 
limits  of  the  United  States,  of  a  father  or 
mother  being  or  having  been  a  natural-born 
citizen  of  the  United  States,  should  be  en- 
titled to  all  the  rights  and  privileges  of  citi- 
zenship; also  that  every  woman  married,  or 
who  should  be  married,  to  a  citizen  of  the 
United  States,  should  be  deemed  and  taken  to 
be  a  citizen.  Webster  explained  that  the  bill 
had  a  very  simple  and  important  object.  By 
the  law  of  1812,  except  by  a  violent  construc- 
tion of  it,  children  born  abroad  of  Americans 
resident  or  traveling  there,  were  not  to  be 
deemed  citizens.  That  act  said  "of  parents 
who  heretofore  have  been,  or  now  are,  citi- 
zens of  the  United  States,"  but  did  not  say 
"hereafter  shall  be."  At  the  time  he  was 
speaking  parents  might  be  forty-six  years  old 
who  were  not  born  in  1802,  and  their  children 
born  abroad  were  excluded  from  citizenship 
by  necessary  construction  of  the  act.  Story, 
Kent,  and  others  thought  the  act  was  very 
vaguely  drawn.  Though  it  was  intended  to 
apply  to  naturalized  citizens,  it  could  not  be 
construed  to  do  so.     To  remedy  that,  making 


NATIVE   AMERICANISM    (CONTINUED)     273 

the  act  apply  to  all  citizens,  was  the  main 
provision  of  the  bill.  The  Judiciary  Commit- 
tee reported  an  amendment,  that  Webster 
indorsed  as  simplifying  the  measure.  It  then 
provided  that  the  children  of  citizens  of  the 
United  States,  born  out  of  the  United  States, 
should  be  considered  as  citizens,  provided 
that  the  rights  of  citizenship  should  not  de- 
scend to  persons  w^hose  fathers  never  had 
been  residents  in  the  United  States.  By  sec. 
2  every  woman  married  already  or  thereafter 
to  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  continu- 
ing to  reside  in  the  United  States,  should  be 
deemed  and  taken  to  be  a  citizen.  The  bill 
did  not  get  out  of  the  committee  of  the 
whole. ^^  An  item  in  Niles  Register,  March  30, 
1844,  was  as  follows: 

Alien  females.  An  alien  wife  should  be  naturalized. 
It  was  decided  by  Judge  Kent  in  the  New  York  circuit 
court,  on  Saturday,  that  a  wife,  born  abroad,  and  not 
naturalized,  could  not  inherit  property  devised  to  her  by  a 
husband.'" 

A  bill  similar  to  that  of  Webster  passed  two 
readings  at  the  first  session  of  the  following 
Congress,  and  was  read  early  in  the  second 
session,  but  has  no  further  record;^"   and  a 

**  (502)  Senate  Journal,  Thirtieth  Congress,  First  Session,  383, 
390;  Congressional  Globe,  Thirtieth  Congress,  First  Session,  827, 
834,  844;  June   12,    13,   15,    1848. 

"  Niles  RegisUr,  LXVI,  80. 

'■^  (566)  House  Journal,  Thirty-first  Congress,  First  Session, 
284,  523;  Congressional  Globe,  Thirty-first  Congress,  First  Session, 
24. 


274     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

Senate  bill  with  the  same  object  was  amended 
by  the  Senate  Judiciary  Committee  in  1852. 
At  length  the  Thirty-third  Congress  suc- 
ceeded in  legislating  upon  these  subjects  by 
devoting  to  them  some  time  at  both  sessions. 
The  House  and  the  Senate  Judiciary  Commit- 
tees were  each  instructed,  on  the  same  day,^® 
to  inquire  as  to  any  necessary  legislation  to 
secure  the  rights  of  citizenship  to  children  of 
American  citizens  born  abroad.  Seward  sub- 
mitted the  resolution  in  the  Senate.  The 
House  resolution  had  directed  a  report  by  bill 
or  otherwise,  at  as  early  a  day  as  possible. 
A  bill  was  reported  on  January  13,  and  passed 
the  same  day.^^  Cutting  explained  for  the 
committee  that  it  was  one  eminently  neces- 
sary to  correct  a  lamentable  defect  in  the  law. 
and  deserved  immediate  action.  It  provided 
that  all  persons  born  out  of  the  United  States, 
whose  fathers  ^^  were  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  should  be  deemed  citizens,  provided 
that  the  rights  of  citizenship  should  not  de- 
scend to  children  whose  fathers  never  resided 
in  the  United  States.  Any  woman,  not  a  citi- 
zen, when  married  to  a  citizen  should  be 
deemed  a  citizen.     The  act  of  1790  had  pro- 

68  December   20,    1853. 

^*  (709)    House    Journal,    Thirty-third    Congress,    First    Session, 
117,    199. 

">  Webster's  bill   had  said  "fathers  or  mothers." 


NATIVE   AMERICANISM    (CONTINUED)     275 

vided  for  such  children,  but  that  of  1802  had 
left  them  aliens  if  their  parents  were  born 
after  1802.  The  difficulty  did  not  manifest 
itself  for  nearly  fifty  years;  but  was  noticed 
some  ten  or  twelve  years  before.  The  Sen- 
ate bill  of  1841  seemed  to  have  been  forgotten. 
A  later  House  bill  unfortunately  went  to  the 
receptacle  of  all  things  that  were  to  be  lost — 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the 
State  of  the  Union.  If  this  went  there, 
the  chances  were  against  its  being  reached. 
The  woman  section  was  taken,  nearly  in  exact 
words,  from  the  English  act  of  1844.  There 
could  be  no  objection  to  it,  because  women 
possessed  no  political  rights.  There  was  no 
good  reason  for  putting  women  to  the  pro- 
bationary term,  and  the  tiouble  and  expense 
of  naturalization.  Being  a  citizen,  she  would 
train  her  children  properly.  New  York  had 
passed  special  acts  for  five  or  six  years  past  to 
guard  against  escheat  of  property  that  should 
descend  to  certain  children  born  abroad,  Init 
the  state  could  not  regulate  their  ■  political 
rights.  An  effort  to  refer  this  bill  to  the  com- 
mittee of  the  whole,  in  the  interest  of  other 
desired  amendments  to  the  naturalization 
law,  failed. '^^ 

In  the  Senate  petitions  against  its  passage 

•1  Congressional    Globe,     Thirty-third    Congress,     First     Session, 
169;   January    13,    1854. 


276     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

without  amendment  were  received,^^  and 
Seward  soon  after  presented  other  petitions 
against  the  passage  of  the  bill.^^  Apparently 
it  was  the  second  section,  providing  that  an 
aHen  woman,  when  married  to  a  citizen, 
should  become  a  citizen,  that  had  prevented 
action  on  the  subject  before,  and  that  caused 
the  opposition  of  the  petitioners.  The  Sen- 
ate Judiciary  Committee  recommended  that 
this  section  be  struck  out.  Nearly  a  year 
later,  Bayard  explained  that  the  committee 
had  revised  its  opinion,  and  he  was  in- 
structed by  it  to  propose,  instead  of  its  for- 
mer amendment,  to  insert  after  "woman"  the 
words  "who  might  be  lawfully  naturalized 
under  existing  laws."  He  said  that  it  was 
considered  both  necessary  and  proper  that  the 
wife  should  not  become  a  citizen  unless  she 
could  be  naturalized  under  existing  laws.^^ 
The  bill  passed  with  this  amendment,  and  the 
House  accepted  it  after  placing  "lawfully" 
before  instead  of  after  "be."^^ 

The  amendment  would  prevent  the  citizen- 
ship of  negro,  Indian,  or  Chinese  women.     It 

•2  One  of  these   was   from   "Horatio   Seymour  and  others." 

•*  (689)    Senate   Journal,    Thirty-third    Congress,    First    Session, 

53.   119.   130,   170. 

8*  Congressional    Globe,    Thirty-third    Congress,    Second   Session, 

92;    December  20,    1854. 

«^  Ibid.,  632. 


NATIVE   AMERICANISM    (CONTINUED)     277 

seems  to  require  moral  character  and  attach- 
ment to  the  principles  of  the  Constitution. 
Perhaps  it  is  an  open  question  whether  five 
years'  residence  is  also  required  by  it.  The 
bill  became  a  law  on  February  10,  1855. 


CHAPTER  XIV 

THE   KNOW-NOTHING   PERIOD 

Returning  to  the  agitation  for  twenty-one 
years'  residence  as  a  prerequisite  to  naturali- 
zation, note  at  the  outset  that  petitions  do 
not  assume  the  importance  henceforth  that 
they  did  in  the  earher  Native  American  move- 
ment. Party  Hues  are  more  tightly  drawn, 
and  there  is  little  use  of  asking  political  oppo- 
nents for  votes  in  Congress. 

On  January  23,  1850,  Levin  gave  notice  of 
a  bill  for  the  protection  of  the  ballot  box  by 
an  extension  of  the  naturalization  law  to 
twenty-one  years  and  by  a  capitation  tax.^ 
This  was  perhaps  the  last  act  in  the  old  agi- 
tation. The  new  began  at  the  opening  of  the 
second  session  of  the  Thirty-third  Congress 
in  December,  1854,  when  Taylor  (Tenn.)  in 
the  House,  and  Adams  (Miss.)  in  the  Senate, 
gave  notice  of  bills,  the  one  to  repeal  or  modi- 
fy the  naturalization  laws,  and  the  other  to 
amend  the  Naturalization  Act  of  1802.  Tay- 
lor's bill  was  introduced  by  unanimous  con- 
sent, but  did  not  get  out  of  the  hands  of  the 
Judiciary  Committee.^     The  Senate  bill   met 

^  Congressional   Globe,   Thirty-first   Congress,    First    Session,    219. 
*  (776)    House   Journal,   Thirty-third    Congress,    Second   Session, 
40,  259. 

278 


KNOW-NOTHING   PERIOD  279 

a  similar  fate,  but  Adams  made  a  speech  upon 
it  before  it  was  referred.  He  explained  that 
the  twenty-one  years'  residence  to  be  required 
was  entirely  prospective.  All  inhabitants  of 
the  United  States  at  the  time  of  the  passage 
of  the  bill  were  to  have  the  benefit  of  the 
existing  law.  He  gave  the  growth  of  the 
population  since  1800  as  about  33  per  cent, 
every  ten  years.  At  that  rate  they  would 
number  about  101,000,000  by  1900.  The 
natives  would  need  the  whole  country,  but  im- 
migration was  increasing  alarmingly.  He  re- 
ferred to  riots  and  mobs,  the  recent  hanging 
of  an  American  senator  in  effigy,^  and  the 
formation  of  the  German  Progressive  Repub- 
lican Party,  with  one  of  its  objects  to  abolish 
the  srbbath.  If  five  years  had  been  a  proper 
time  in  1802  for  the  "then"  class  of  immi- 
grants (only  seven  thousand  a  year,  and  scat- 
tered) to  become  acquainted  with  the  govern- 
ment, twenty-one  years  was  not  too  long  for 
the  class  of  people  coming  now,  three  hun- 
dred and  seventy  thousand  a  year,  in  large 
bands,  settling  whole  neighborhoods  and  com- 
munities, and  keeping  their  own  language. 
He  believed  that  public  opinion  demanded 
the  proposed  change,  and  the  safety  of  the 
government  required  it.     The  new  party  had 

'  Douglas,    chairman   of   the   conmiittee   on   territories,    had   been 
hanged  in  effigy  by   foreigners,   called  a   German   mob. 


28o     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

had  great  success  in  the  last  election.  He 
did  not  belong  to  the  Know-Nothing  organi- 
zation, and  had  twice  advocated  similar  views 
in  the  House  before  its  successes  were  made, 
when  he  had  favored  the  entire  repeal  of  the 
naturalization  laws.  He  was  told  that  states 
possessed  and  exercised  control  over  the  suf- 
frage. His  answer  was  that  the  states,  having 
conferred  the  right  of  naturalization  on  the 
general  government,  should,  in  all  good  faith 
to  the  general  government  and  to  each  other, 
conform  the  qualifications  of  voters  to  the 
laws  of  naturalization.  Many  of  them  had 
done  so,  and  recent  changes  in  public  opin- 
ion justified  the  belief  that  nearly  all  would 
conform  to  the  principles  of  his  bill.  He  was 
not  tenacious  about  twenty-one  years,  but 
thought  it  the  proper  and  favorite  time.  No 
man  in  the  United  States  could  complain  of 
injustice  by  the  bill."*  A  petition  was  received 
from  the  Rhode  Island  Legislature,^  asking, 
among  other  things,  for  a  new  naturalization 
law  requiring  twenty-one  years'  continuous 
residence,  and  that  all  processes  and  oaths  be 
taken  in  a  United  States  circuit  or  district 
court,   and   before   the   judge   in   open    court. 

*  Congressional    Globe,    Thirty-third    Congress,    Second    Session, 
IS,   24-26. 

'  See  p.  265. 


KNOW-NOTHING   PERIOD  281 

This  was  laid  on  the  table  by  the  Senate,*^  and 
referred  by  the  House." 

A  number  of  speeches,  pro  and  con,  on 
Know-Nothingism  were  made  during  this 
session  of  Congress.  N.  P.  Banks  defended 
the  right  of  the  Know-Nothings  to  organize 
secretly.  Their  object  made  such  organiza- 
tion a  popular  movement  an-d  not  a  conspir- 
acy. He  stated  that  the  ground  of  their  oppo- 
sition to  Roman  Catholic  naturalization  was 
that  their  allegiance  was  claimed  by  the  pope. 
There  had  been  great  growth  in  immigration, 
and  Old  World  conditions  would  increase  it. 
Chinese  immigration  to  Japan  had  been  lim- 
ited; many  Chinese  were  already  in  Califor- 
nia. With  steamers  crossing  the  Pacific  in 
ten  or  twelve  days,  who  could  prophesy  its 
outcome?  Or  who  could  check  it?  The  Su- 
preme Court  had  decided  that  the  states  could 
not.  If  they  came,  they  would  be  admitted. 
Should  they  be  naturalized  in  five  years?  An 
organized  minority  of  foreign-born  had  great 
power,  for  which  there  was  no  remedy  except 
that  union  that  was  understood  to  be  a  chief 
object  of  the  Know^-Nothings.  A  change  in 
the    naturalization    laws    would    not    remedy 

*  (745)  Senate  Journal,  Thirty-third  Congress,  Second  Session, 
293;  (772)  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents.  Thirty-third  Congress, 
Second   Session,    No.    19. 

■'  (776)  House  Journal.  Thirty-third  Congress,  Second  Session, 
423;  February  21,   1853. 


282     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

that  evil.  Yet  extending  the  term  of  resi- 
dence required,  and  more  stringent  execution 
of  the  laws,  might  be  justified.  Whether  the 
term  should  be  twenty-one,  twelve,  or  ten 
years  he  would  leave  for  others  to  say.^ 

Barry  (Miss.)  said  that  the  Know-Nothing 
purposes  were  unknown — as  set  forth  they 
were  contradictory.  Prejudice  and  hostility 
to  foreigners  were  greater  inversely  as  the 
degree  of  civilization  of  a  nation.  The  Know- 
Nothings  sought  to  justify  themselves  by 
claiming  that  there  are  secret  foreign  organi- 
zations, but  these  they  dignify  by  imitating. 
Know-Nothing  purposes  seem  to  be :  ( i ) 
the  exclusion  of  all  foreigners  from  office; 
(2)  the  extension  of  the  naturalization  law 
to  twenty-one  years  or  other  period ;  ( 3 ) 
the  entire  repeal  of  naturalization  laws;  (4) 
the  exclusion  of  Roman  Catholics  from  office. 
The  real  danger  was  in  foreigners  congregat- 
ing alone,  and  proscription  tended  to  cause 
that.  They  might  even  get  complete  control 
of  some  northwestern  state.  He  admitted 
the  duty  of  excluding  paupers  and  criminals. 
If  the  evil  from  them  was  as  great  as  was 
charged,  it  was  remarkable  that  they  had  been 
allowed  to  come  so  long.  If  the  naturaliza- 
tion   laws    were    repealed,    the    states   would 

^  Congressional  Globe,  Appendix,  Thirty-third  Congress,  Second 
Session,  49-52;   December    18,    1854. 


KNOW-NOTHING  PERIOD  283 

then  legislate.  Naturalization  gave  nearly 
all  rights,  and  yet  the  states  could  bestow 
nearly  all  without  naturalization.  They  gave 
full  suffrage,  holding  real  estate,  and  state 
office.  Other  states  did  not  recognize  these 
rights,  and  a  law  of  Congress  was  necessary 
to  give  the  privileges  and  immunities  of  citi- 
zens in  the  several  states.  A  state  could  even 
deny  suffrage  to  all  who  were  not  natives  of 
it.  Not  a  voter  in  the  Union  derived  his 
power  from  the  federal  government.^  His 
state  (Miss.)  had  one  foreigner  to  sixty  popu- 
lation, while  some  states  had  one  to  eight  or 
ten.  The  problem  differed,  and  states  dealt 
with  it  as  they  found  it.  This  movement  at 
the  North  was  a  combination  of  all  the  isms — 
abolitionism,  free-soilism,  Whig-,  woman's 
rights-,  social-,  and  anti-rent/.s//;.  Seward  was 
against  Know-Nothingism,  for  he  had  com- 
mitted himself  against  foreign  voters,  and  he 
had  sagacity.  It  was  the  universal  opinion 
in  political  circles  that  the  movement  was  for 
a  brief  day.  The  discordant  elements  would 
dissolve  it,  if  no  other  causes  did.  This  new 
ism  was  the  old  alien  law  and  Native  Ameri- 
canism. The  old  unlaid  spirit  of  federalism 
was  abroad.     It  was  hostile  to  democracy.^'* 

•  This  would  need   qualification   as   to   inhabitants  of  territories. 

1"  Congressional  Globe,   Appendix,   Thirty-tliird  Conpress.   Second 
Session,  53. 


284     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

Sellers  (Md.),  a  pro-slavery  southerner, 
defended  Know-Nothingism.  The  immigra- 
tion, only  one  hundred  and  twenty  thousand 
for  the  first  twenty  years,  had  swelled  to  an 
ocean  stream  that  would  sweep  away  gov- 
ernment, laws,  institutions,  and  the  very  name 
of  American.  Its  character  also  had  totally 
changed.  It  was  the  domestic  policy  of  for- 
eign governments  to  send  over  the  refuse  of 
their  jails  and  prisons,  and  their  paupers  also. 
As  to  Know-Nothing  secrecy,  the  Boston 
Tea  Party  was  secret,  and  he  held  in  his 
hand  at  that  moment  a  call  for  a  secret  Demo- 
cratic caucus.  He  denied  that  the  principles 
of  the  Native  American  party  were  secret. 
Also,  it  warred  against  no  religion,  but 
against  the  union  of  church  and  state,  against 
the  mingling  of  religion  with  politics,  and 
against  allegiance  to  a  foreign  prince  or  po- 
tentate combined  with  American  citizenship. 
He  denied  that  Know-Nothingism  had  first 
appeared  in  the  House  in  the  person  of  Banks, 
of  Massachusetts — he  himself  had  first  intro- 
duced a  proposition  to  exclude  foreigners 
from  the  army  and  navy.  Look  at  the  vic- 
tories of  the  party.  It  had  swept  over  Penn- 
sylvania like  a  whirlwind,  and  failed  in  New 
York  only  because  it  knew  not  its  own 
strength.     It   was   victorious   in   New  Jersey 


KNOW-NOTHING    PERIOD  285 

and  Delaware.  In  Massachusetts  it  had  an- 
nihilated all  its  opponents.  He  could  not 
doubt  its  triumphant  success,  and  that  none 
but  "Americans  shall  govern  America."  " 

W.  R.  Smith  (Ala.)  referred  to  proposi- 
tions in  both  houses  to  repeal  or  modify  the 
naturalization  laws.  It  was  becoming  the 
great  question  of  the  age.  The  voice  of  the 
people  would  force  the  legislatures  to  take  a 
stand,  and  all  mere  party  organizations  would 
have  to  retire  before  it.  The  vituperations 
of  the  press  were  leveled  against  the  move- 
ment, but  he  felt  no  apprehensions.  They 
presented  the  simple  proposition — the  purifi- 
cation of  the  ballot  box;  and  proposed  only 
to  exclude  unnaturalized  foreigners,  and  to 
check  immigration  by  wholesome  laws.  They 
had  some  radical  propositions,  but  no  bill,  be- 
cause nobody  could  suppose  that  that  Con- 
gress would  favor  this  reformation.  They 
could  not  expect  that  an  administration  so 
distinctly  committed  in  favor  of  foreigners 
and  foreign  influence  as  the  existing  one 
would  take  the  back  track.  He  did  not  sup- 
pose that  the  bill  before  them  would  receive 
any  serious  attention.  There  was  no  law  to  ex- 
clude a  foreigner,  and  no  effectively  adminis- 
tered one  requiring  a  passport.    No  other  coun- 

11  Loc.  cit.,  83. 


286     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

try  on  earth  was  so  situated.  No  immigrant 
should  land  without  taking  a  solemn  oath  re- 
nouncing allegiance  to  all  foreign  powers  and 
declaring"  bona  fide  intention  to  become  an  in- 
habitant of  the  United  States.  A  passport 
from  a  consul  should  be  required,  and  both 
captain  and  passport  should  inform  him  of 
the  requirements  here.  England,  France, 
Russia,  and  all  governments  in  the  East  re- 
quired a  passport.  A  foreign  power  could 
land  on  their  shores  any  number  of  soldiers 
before  committing  any  hostile  act.  How  easy 
it  would  be  for  Russia  to  land  a  hundred 
thousand  in  a  month,  and  they  could  equip 
themselves  after  landing!  Consuls  should 
investigate  and  give  passports  only  to  suit- 
able persons.  A  modification  of  the  naturali- 
zation laws  should  prevent  all  foreigners  from 
voting  who  were  not  naturalized  already  or 
had  not  taken  steps  to  become  so,  except  that 
boys  under  ten,  or  even  fifteen,  immigrating 
with  their  parents,  should  be  considered  citi- 
zens in  every  respect  at  the  age  of  twenty- 
one.  There  had  been  fraud,  negligence,  and 
corruption  from  the  foundation  of  the  govern- 
ment in  the  administration  of  the  naturali- 
zation laws.  Of  three  hundred  thousand  im- 
mig-rants  landed  in  New  York  alone  during 
1854  only  five  thousand  applied  for  naturali- 


KNOW-NOTHING   PERIOD  287 

zation  or  swore  allegiance  to  the  country.  In 
five  years  more  there  would  be  a  million  a 
year  coming.  There  was  no  law  to  prevent  a 
pagan  Chinese  from  appearing  in  Congress 
with  power  to  mingle  in  its  councils. ^^ 

L.  M.  Keitt  (S.  C.)  said  that  the  country 
had  recently  been  amazed  by  the  successes 
of  a  novel  political  organization  which  dis- 
paraged the  dignity  of  American  character 
by  threatening  it  with  subjection  to  a  secret 
order.  It  was  argued  that  the  power  to  nat- 
uralize enabled  Congress  to  regulate  the  con- 
stituency. But  for  what  did  Congress  make 
a  citizen  of  the  United  States?  The  Consti- 
tution answered :  The  citizens  of  each  state 
shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges  and  im- 
munities of  the  citizens  in  the  several  states. 
Since  many  states  affixed  a  property  quali- 
fication, and  perhaps  all  required  a  term  of 
residence,  how  could  privileges  and  immuni- 
ties refer  to  the  right  to  vote?  They  referred 
to  property  and  personal  rights,  and  not  po- 
litical. The  discussion  in  the  convention  had 
shown  a  clear  purpose  to  leave  the  control 
of  suffrage  to  the  states.  The  Know- Noth- 
ing movement  looked  to  the  consolidation  of 

12  Z,i>c.  c?V.,  94.  The  last  statement  would  be  true  only  of  a 
naturalized  Chinaman,  twelve  years  a  resident.  The  question  of 
naturalizing  Chinese  was  an  unsettled  one  then,  or  one  hardly  yet 
raised. 


288     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

the    government;    and,    if    consolidated,    he 
asked:  Was  it  then  worth  preserving?*^ 

Witte  moved  a  suspension  of  the  rules  that 
he  might  ofifer  resolutions  that  the  existence 
of  such  a  secret,  oath-bound  political  organi- 
zation was  inconsistent  with  republican  in- 
stitutions and  hostile  to  the  genius  of  the  gov- 
ernment. The  attempt  to  proscribe  citizens 
for  religion,  or  to  favor  or  injure  a  religious 
denomination,  was  a  direct  violation  of  the 
spirit  of  the  Constitution.  Careful  and  strict 
administration  of  the  naturalization  laws  was 
a  solemn  duty ;  yet  interference  with  the 
rights  of  naturalized  citizens  was  inconsistent 
with  the  plighted  faith  of  the  nation,  and  must 
diminish  its  growth  and  prosperity.  The  vote 
on  this  motion  was  104  to  78,  lacking  eighteen 
of  the  necessary  two-thirds.^'*  Three  similar 
resolutions  were  proposed  in  the  Senate 
shortly  before,^^  but  were  dropped  without 
being  acted  upon.^^  Opposition  was  further 
shown  by  a  resolution  of  the  Legislature  of 
Wisconsin,  presented  by  Senator  Dodge,  de- 
claring that  they  were  opposed  to  any  altera- 

13  Congressional  Globe,  Appendix,  Thirty-third  Congress,  Sec- 
ond  Session,   66. 

^*  (776)  House  Journal,  Thirty-third  Congress,  Second  Ses- 
sion,  314. 

i»  January   25,    1855. 

'*  Congressional  Globe,  Thirty-third  Congress,  Second  Session, 
391. 


KNOW-NOTHING   PERIOD  289 

tion  of  the  naturalization  laws,  and  directing 
their  members  to  oppose  any  law  extending 
the  time  of  residence  for  naturalization.^^ 

The  prolonged  contest  over  the  speaker- 
ship in  the  House  in  1855,  and  the  presiden- 
tial campaign  of  1856,  each  caused  debates 
in  which  political  parties  and  Know-Noth- 
ingism  were  much  discussed.  In  the  speaker- 
ship contest,  Cox  (Ky.)  said  that  he  consid- 
ered none  to  be  Americans  who  did  not  ac- 
cept the  twelfth  section  of  the  Philadelphia 
platform.  All  others  were  apostates  or  bolt- 
ers. The  American  Council  had  declared  that 
agitation  of  slavery  was  not  a  question  of  im- 
portance in  the  order — that  it  was  not  a  ques- 
tion at  all.  This  was  an  expression  of  the  in- 
tention of  the  party  to  be  national,  to  abide  by 
existing  laws,  and  to  throw  out  of  Congress 
all  agitation  on  that  subject  for  the  future.^® 

^^  (745)  Senate  Journal,  Thirty-third  Congress,  Second  Session, 
231;  (772)  Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,  Thirty-third  Congress, 
Second  Session,  No.   12. 

1*  The  section  referred  to,  adopted  at  Philadelphia,  June,  1855. 
was  in  part  as  follows:  "The  National  Council  has  deemed  it  the 
best  guarantee  of  common  justice  and  future  peace,  to  abide  by  and 
maintain  the  existing  laws  on  the  subject  of  slavery,  as  a  final  and 
conclusive  settlement  of  that  subject  in  spirit  and  in  substance." 
It  further  declared  that  Congress  had  no  power  to  legislate  upon 
the  subject  in  the  states,  or  to  exclude  any  state  because  its  consti- 
tution did  or  did  not  recognize  slavery;  and  that  Congress  ought 
not  to  legislate  upon  the  subject  in  the  territories  nor  interfere 
with  it  in  the  District  of  Columbia.  The  new  platform  adopted  in 
February,  1856,  mrxdc  no  mention  of  slavery.  It  was  asserted  in 
Congress  that  Fillmore  would  not  have  accepted  the  presidential 
nomination  on  the  former  platform  (Congressional  Globe.  Thirty- 
fourth  Congress,   J-'irst   Session,   .Appendix,    11 52). 


290     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

The  position  taken  by  the  Democratic  party 
on  that  question  was  identical  with  that  of 
the  Americans.  He  wished  to  make  a  gulf 
impassable  between  Americans  and  abolition- 
ists. The  Democratic  members  of  the  House 
had  passed  a  resolution,  which  he  quoted,  giv- 
ing congratulations  on  the  triumph  in  vari- 
ous places  of  the  doctrines  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty  which  had  been  so  violently  assailed  by  a 
secret  order,  known  as  the  Know-Nothing  party. 
The  position  of  the  administration  and  these 
resolutions  of  the  Democratic  caucus  disabled  the 
Americans  from  bringing  support  to  elect  a  Dem- 
ocratic speaker.  He  could  not  carry  with  him 
enough  Native  Americans  to  elect  a  Democrat  if 
he  would;  but  let  the  Democrats  come  to  the 
Americans,  and  they  would  elect  a  speaker 
and  defeat  northern  sectionalism.  The 
American  party  wanted  no  disturbing  legisla- 
tion; it  asked  only  for  peace.^^ 

Some  time  after  the  election  of  Banks  as 
speaker.  Smith  (Tenn.)  read  the  names  of  120 
out  of  234  members  of  the  House,  whom  he 
declared  to  have  been  elected  as  Know-Noth- 
ings  or  Americans.  He  called  all  who  had 
received  Know-Nothing  support  Know-Noth- 
ings,  and  said  that  they  were  elected  by 
Know-Nothings.      Seventy-five    of    them,    he 

^*  Congressional  Globe,  Appendix,  Thirty-fourth  Congress,  First 
Session.    34-41;    December   21,    1855. 


KNOW-NOTHING  PERIOD  291 

said,  had  voted  for  Banks,  who  had  been  the 
champion  of  their  order  in  Congress. 
Twenty-eight  abolitionists  had  voted  for  him, 
and  not  a  Democrat.^"  ElHott  said  that  the 
Know-Nothings  had  carried  a  majority  of 
the  House,  thirty  from  the  South  and  ninety 
from  the  North,  according  to  the  undenied 
count  of  Smith,  of  Tennessee,  and  then  had 
permitted  the  election  of  Banks.  The  war 
on  the  Democratic  party  by  southern  Know- 
Nothings  was  much  fiercer  than  that  on  the 
Black  Republican,  or  northern  wing  of  their 
party.^^ 

Marshall   (111.)   said: 

Another  wing  of  this  allied  army  engaged  in  unholy 
warfare  against  the  Democratic  party  is  the  southern 
branch  of  the  Know  Nothing  party ;  the  northern  branch, 
with  very  few  exceptions,  having  been  swallowed  up  and 
completely  identified  with  the  Black  Republican  movement. 

Born  of  bigotry  and  intolerance,  that  secret, 
oath-bound  organization  had  sprung  up  full- 
grown  in  a  night  time  for  a  brief  career ;  with 
the  frosts  of  November  it  would  have  passed 
from  the  earth.  The  blackest  page  in  the  his- 
tory of  those  times  would  be  the  record  of 
ingratitude  of  the  Southern  Know-Nothings 
to  the  northern  Democratic  party.     The  great 

"0  Ibid.,  352;  April  4,  1856. 
*^  Ibid.,    1 1 52. 


292     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

abolition  sea  had  swelled  and  rolled — these 
men  had  battled  against  it  in  the  face  of  os- 
tracism ;  but  from  Maine  to  California  not 
one  Know-Nothing  member  had  been  on  the 
side  of  the  Constitution  in  the  contest.^^ 

Talbott  (Ky.),  in  showing  that  the  Know- 
Nothing  proposition  that  no  state  or  terri- 
tory should  give  the  suffrage  to  unnaturali- 
zed foreigners  was  impracticable  and  uncon- 
stitutional, quoted  from  a  speech  of  Hon. 
Garret  Davis,  "one  of  the  ablest  jurists  of 
Kentucky,"  in  the  Kentucky  constitutional 
convention.  Davis  had  no  doubt  of  the  com- 
petency, the  right,  and  the  duty  if  for  good, 
of  Kentucky  to  require  twenty-one  years' 
residence  for  suffrage.  It  appeared  to  him 
wholly  fallacious  and  untenable  that  states 
could  not  add  to  the  requirements  of  the  nat- 
uralization law  of  Congress  for  suffrage.  The 
states  could  confer  the  elective  franchise  upon 
foreigners  and  make  them  eligible  to  office 
before  naturalization ;  and  they  had  un- 
doubted power  to  exclude  them  after  natur- 
alization. Their  citizenship  conferred  upon 
them  only  rights  conceded  by  the  federal 
Constitution,  and  not  a  single  one  under  any 
state  government.  States  could  wholly  deny 
Doth   suffrage   and   office   to  naturalized   per- 

22  Loc.  cit.,  1228. 


KNOW-NOTHING   PERIOD  293 

sons,  or  could  confer  both  fully  or  with  re- 
strictions as  they  would.  Talbott  added  that 
nearly  half  of  the  states  allowed  foreigners 
to  vote  in  from  nine  months  to  two  years. 
Power  in  Congress  over  the  suffrage  by  nat- 
uralization meant  power  to  control  property, 
age,  and  other  qualifications  for  suffrage.^^ 

In  February,  1856,  Adams  (Miss.),  whose 
naturalization  bill  had  been  suppressed  in  a 
Senate  Committee,  in  the  previous  Con- 
gress,^'* introduced  a  new  bill.^^  It  provided 
that  no  alien  arriving  after  its  passage  should 
become  a  citizen,  unless  on  his  application 
he  should  declare  on  oath,  and  prove  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  court,  twenty-one  years' 
continuous  residence  in  the  United  States. 
Declaration  of  intention  should  not  be  per- 
mitted until  the  alien  had  resided  at  least  ten 
years  in  the  United  States.  Any  alien  free 
white  person,  having  proved  twelve  months' 
residence  in  the  United  States,  should  be 

entitled  to  all  the  protection  of  the  government,  and  be 
allowed  to  inherit,  and  hold,  and  transmit  real  estate,  so 
long  as  he  remains  within  the  limits  of  the  United  States, 
in  the  same  manner  as  thongh  he  were  a  citizen.^" 

2S  Ibid.,    1233;   July   28,    1856. 
"*  See  p.  278. 

-^  (809)  Sciuite  Journal,  Thirty-fourth  Congress,  First  Session, 
84. 

-"  Quoted  from  a  summary  of  the  bill. 


294     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

Aliens  should  be  admitted  only  in  a  United 
States  circuit  or  district  court  in  some  state  or 
territory.  The  penalty  was  to  be  five  hundred 
dollars  for  a  ship  bringing  in  any  immigrant 
without  an  authenticated  consular  certificate, 
deposited  with  the  master,  that  the  person 
was  of  good  character,  had  never  been  con- 
victed of  a  criminal  offense,  and  never  had 
been  a  pauper.^^  Toombs,  from  the  Judiciary 
Committee,  returned  the  bill  without  amend- 
ment, but  with  the  report  that  it  ought  not 
to  pass. 

Several  special  orders  were  made  for  its 
consideration  in  committee  of  the  whole,  to 
accommodate  Adams,  who  finally  made  a 
two-hour  speech  upon  it.  It  appears  that  no 
one  else  cared  to  discuss  it,^^  and  nothing 
more  was  done  with  it.  Adams  said  that,  as 
mercy  at  the  expense  of  justice  became 
cruelty,  so  liberality  to  aliens  at  the  expense 
of  the  morals,  security,  and  rights  of  citizens 
was  inexcusable,  if  not  suicidal.  He  quoted 
largely  to  show  opinions  and  abuses.  Twenty 
years  would  double  the  population  without 
immigration,  and  it  would  then  be  as  dense 
as  was  consistent  with  their  welfare.  He  was 
told  that  they  would  take  Mexico  when  they 

^'  Congressional  Globe,  Thirty-fourth  Congress,  First  Session, 
079;  April  21,    1856. 

2B/6tii.,   1414, 


KNOW-NOTHING   PERIOD  295 

needed  more  room,  but  he  was  opposed  to  a 
deliberate  plan  to  supply  by  robbery  and  mur- 
der wants  created  by  a  permanent  policy  of 
inviting  the  hordes  of  Europe  to  come  and 
partake  of  the  bounty  derived  from  their  an- 
cestors. Except  for  immigration,  the  South 
would  have  gained  upon  the  North  in  in- 
fluence in  Congress.  Already  five  state  legis- 
latures had  nullified  a  constitutional  law  of 
Congress.^^  Division  and  anarchy  were  inevi- 
table unless  they  checked  immigration.  He 
was  told  there  was  no  danger,  as  the  immi- 
grants voted  the  Democratic  ticket.  But  let 
them  crush  out  the  American  party,  as  it  was 
said  the  next  election  would  do,  and,  with  the 
contest  between  Republicans  and  Democrats, 
how  would  the  northern  foreigners  vote? 
Seward,  Giddings,  and  Greeley  could  tell 
them.  Nine-tenths  of  them  would  vote  the 
Republican  ticket,  for  their  whole  education 
and  prejudices  were  against  slavery.^" 

A  year  later  a  bill  was  introduced  in  the 
House  by  Whitney  to  establish  a  uniform  rule 
of  naturalization,  and  for  the  repeal  of  exist- 
ing laws.    Late  in  the  summer  ^^  the  Judiciary 

^'  This  probably  refers  to  the  passage  of  personal  liberty  laws 
in  the  North. 

""  (809)  Senate  Journal,  Thirty-fourth  Congress,  First  Session, 
269,  319,  372,  381;  Congressional  Globe,  Thirty-fourth  Congress, 
First    Session,    i409f. 

»'  July    21,    1856. 


296     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

Committee  reported  it,  with  an  amendment 
in  the  nature  of  a  substitute.  Hoffman,  a 
Know-Nothing  member  from  Maryland, 
made  a  speech  upon  it.  In  the  next  regular 
session,  in  December,  a  motion  to  discharge 
the  committee  of  the  whole  from  its  further 
consideration,  and  instruct  that  it  be  reported 
to  the  House  and  made  a  special  order  from 
day  to  day  until  it  was  disposed  of,  was  lost 
by  a  vote  of  89  to  92. ^^ 

Hoffman  referred  to  three  dangerous 
measures  that  had  recently  passed.  In  spite 
of  public  sentiment,  he  said,  the  administra- 
tion had  brought  forward  a  bill  whose  whole 
object  was  to  open  the  floodgates  wider  to  a 
stream  of  corruption  and  commerce  in  foreign 
merchantable  votes,  and  to  break  down  the 
guards  against  it.  After  days  of  struggle,  a 
fusion  of  administration  and  abolition  forces 
had  transferred  the  capital  city  government 
from  American  to  foreign  hands.  The  Dis- 
trict being  the  only  place  outside  of  the  ter- 
ritories where  Congress  could  regulate  the 
suffrage,  the  bill  was  of  great  magnitude  as 
regarded  principle,  line  of  policy,  and  prece- 
dent. Again,  an  amendment  to  the  bill  for 
a  convention    for    organizing  Oregon  Terri- 

'- A  two-thirds  vote  was  necessary  to  carry.  (838)  House 
Journal.     Thirty-fourth     Congress,     First     Session,     489,     668;     (839) 


KNOW-NOTHING  PERIOD  297 

tory,  by  which  suffrage  was  to  be  Hmited  to 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  had  been  re- 
jected by  fusion  No.  2.  Finally,  when  the 
Senate  had  passed  the  Kansas  pacification 
bill,  containing  a  repeal  of  the  permission  in 
the  Kansas  organic  act  for  full  suffrage  and 
office-holding  to  unnaturalized  foreigners,  a 
majority  of  the  Democrats  had  fused  with  the 
abolitionists  against  it.  This  was  a  gigantic 
stride  toward  denationalization. 

The  bill  before  them,  while  not  all  that  was 
desired,  had  several  leading  provisions  that 
were  salutary.  The  period  of  probation  was 
left  blank,  but  a  majority  of  the  committee 
was  for  not  less  than  seven  years.  As  was 
eminently  wise  and  proper,  the  bill  provided 
for  a  registry  law.  Commencement  of  resi- 
dence could  be  indicated  by  filing  a  statement 
with  the  clerk  of  the  court,  with  ages  and 
other  particulars  of  self  and  family.  Then 
the  final  petition  for  admission  was  to  be 
filed  at  least  twenty  days  before  the  com- 
mencement of  the  term  of  court,  and  no 
hearing  on  an  application  could  be  had  with- 
in twenty  days  before  an  election.  It  would 
be  well  also  to  enact  that  no  person  or  com- 
mittee should  pay  the  costs  for  the  person 
naturalized.  The  greatest  statesmen  had  ac- 
knowledged   the    necessity   of    a    change    in    the 


298     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

existing  system.  The  bill  would  destroy  the 
business  of  putting  through  raw  material 
even  on  election  day.^^ 

Meanwhile,  a  resolution  of  the  Massachu- 
setts Legislature  was  laid  on  the  table  in  the 
House  and  referred  in  the  Senate.  It  urged 
that  their  peculiar  system,  very  distinct  in 
spirit  and  principles,  presupposed  a  state  of 
society  and  public  opinion  never  yet  existing 
elsewhere.  Republican  institutions  were  es- 
pecially adapted  to  an  educated  and  intelli- 
gent people,  capable  of,  and  accustomed  to, 
self-government.  Free  institutions  could  be  con- 
fined safely  only  to  free  men — to  men  free  from 
ignorance,  and  personal,  religious,  and  political 
despotism.  Foreigners  could  have  in  general,  no 
sober  appreciation  of  the  principles,  character, 
and  purpose  of  such  institutions.  Aliens  were,  as 
a  rule,  incapable  of  exercising  the  franchise  with 
advantage  to  themselves  or  with  safety  to  others. 
The  legislature  recommended  these  truths  to  the 
consideration  of  the  Massachusetts  delega- 
tion in  Congress;  and  requested  their  en- 
deavors to  extend  the  term  of  residence  re- 
quired for  political  rights,  and  their  in- 
fluence to  place  the  offices  of  government, 
both  at  home  and  abroad,  exclusively  in  the 

'^  Congressional  Globe,  Thirty-fourth  Congress,  First  Session, 
Appendix,    1212. 


KNOW-NOTHING   PERIOD  299 

hands  of  native-born  citizens  who  were  op- 
posed to  every  kind  of  despotism. ^^ 

In  the  House  in  January,  1857,  Henry 
Winter  Davis  said  that  the  recent  election 
had  developed  in  aggravated  form  every  evil 
against  which  the  American  party  protested. 
Republicans  and  Democrats  had  rivaled  each 
other  in  bidding  for  the  foreign  vote.  For- 
eign allies,  men  naturalized  in  thousands  on 
the  eve  of  election,  had  been  struggled  for  by 
the  competing  parties.  It  was  the  high  mis- 
sion of  the  American  party  to  restore  the  in- 
fluence of  the  interests  of  the  people.  He 
called  on  the  Americans  of  the  North  to  re- 
turn from  the  paths  of  error  to  the  sound 
position  of  the  American  party,  that  of  silence 
on  the  slavery  agitation.^** 

Several  hopeless  efforts  to  amend  the 
naturalization  laws  were  made  in  the  House 
from  1857  to  i860.  A  bill  by  Humphrey  Mar- 
shall reached  the  Judiciary  Committee. ^^  No- 
tice for  leave  to  introduce  bills  was  given  by 
Marshall  and  I.  N.  Morris.  Marshall  also 
sought    to    introduce     a    joint     resolution    to 

'*  (838)  House  Journal,  Thirty-fourth  Congress,  First  Session, 
653;  (809)  Senate  Journal,  Thirty-fourth  Congress,  First  Session, 
114;  House  Miscellaneous  Documents,  Thirty- fourth  Congress,  First 
Session,    March    7,    1856. 

'*  Congressional  Globe,  Thirty-fourth  Congress,  Third  Session, 
Appendix,    125. 

'*  (892)    House  Journal,   Thirty-fourth   Congress,   Third   Session, 

251. 


300     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

amend  the  Constitution.^"  Finally,  a  bill  by 
Morris,  to  amend  the  naturalization  laws,  was 
reported  by  Houston  from  the  Judiciary  Com- 
mittee, with  the  recommendation,  that  it  do 
not  pass;  and  it  was  laid  on  the  table. ^^  Then 
came  the  Civil  War,  and  the  end  of  the 
American  party. 

37  (940)  loc  cit.,  Thirty-fifth    Congress,    First    Session,    186,    1045. 

**  (99s)  ibid.,  Thirty-fifth  Congress,  Second  Session,  115,  260; 
Congressional  Globe,  Thirty-fifth  Congress,  Second  Session,  611; 
January   26,    1859. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Adams,  Henry.  History  of  the  United  States  of  America. 
9  vols.     New  York,  1889-91. 

Writings  of  Albert  Gallatin.     3  vols.     Philadelphia, 

1879. 

Adams,  John  Quincy.  Memoirs  of  John  Quincy  Adams. 
Edited  by  Charles  Francis  Adams.  12  vols.  Phila- 
delphia, 1874. 

Adams,  John.  The  Works  of  John  Adams.  With  a  Life 
of  the  Author  by  his  grandson,  Charles  Francis 
Adams.     10  vols.     Boston,  1856. 

American  Historical  Association,  Papers  and  Annual  Re- 
ports. 

American  State  Papers.  Documents,  Legislative  and 
Executive.  Folio,  38  vols.  Washington :  Gales  & 
Seaton,  1832-61. 

Annals  of  Congress. 

Aurora. 

Bancroft,  George.  History  of  the  Formation  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  of  America.  2  vols.  New 
York,  1882. 

History    of   the    United   States   of   America.      The 

author's  last  revision.    6  vols.     New  York,  1885. 

Bassett,  John  Spencer.  Slavery  and  Servitude  in  the 
Colony  of  North  Carolina.  Johns  Hopkins  University 
Studies,  Vol.  XIV,  Nos.  4,  5.     Baltimore,  1896. 

Beaulieu,  Paul  Lerov.  The  Modern  State  in  Relation  to 
Society  and  the  Individual.    London.  1891. 

Bluntschli,  J.  K.  The  Theory  of  the  State.  Oxford. 
1885. 

Burgess,    John    W.     Political   Science   and    Comparative 
Constitutional  Lazv.    2  vols.     Boston,  1890. 
301 


302     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

Calhoun,  John  C.     IVorks.    6  vols.     New  York,  1853-85. 

Columbia  College  Studies  in  History. 

Conway,   Moncure   D.     Life  of  Thomas  Paine.     2  vols. 

New  York,  1892. 
Congressional  Globe. 
Congressional  Record. 
Curtis,   George  Ticknor.     Constitutional  History   of   the 

United  States.    Edited  by  Joseph  Culbertson  Clayton. 

2  vols.    New  York,  1889-96. 

Dallas,   A.   J.     Life   and    Writings   of  Alexander   James 

Dallas.     By  his  son  George  M.  Dallas.     Philadelphia, 

187 1. 
Elliott's  Debates. 
English  Statutes  at  Large. 
Federalist,   The.     Edited   by    Henry    Cabot   Lodge.      New 

York  and  London,  1895. 
Franklin,  Benjamin.     The  Works  of  Benjamin  Franklin. 

With  a  Life  of  the  Author  by  Jared  Sparks,     id  vols. 

Boston,  1856. 
Freeman,    Edward    A.      Comparative    Politics.      London, 

1873. 
Gallatin,  Albert.     Writings.     Edited  by  Henry  Adams. 

3  vols.     Philadelphia,  1879. 

Hall,  W.  E.     A  Treatise  on  International  Laiv.     Oxford, 

1895- 

Hamilton,  Alexander.  Tlie  JVorks  of  Alexander  Hamil- 
ton. Edited  by  Henry  Cabot  Lodge.  New  York  and 
London,  1885. 

Hamilton,  John  C.  History  of  the  Republic  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  as  Traced  in  the  Writings  of  Alex- 
ander Hamilton  and  of  His  Cotemporaries.  Phila- 
delphia, 1864. 

Harrison,  Frederic.     Order  and  Progress.     London,  1875. 

Hening,   William    Waller.     Statutes-at-Large;    Being   a 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  303 

Collection  of  All  the  Laivs  of  I'irginia  (i6i()-i7f)2). 
13  vols.     Philadelphia  and  New  York,  1823. 

HiLDRETH,  Richard.  History  of  the  United  States.  6  vols. 
New  York,  1851-56. 

HoLST,  Dr.  H.  von.  The  Constitutional  and  Political  His- 
tory of  the  United  States.    8  vols.     Chicago,  1876-92. 

House  Documents. 

House  Executive  Documents. 

House  Journals. 

House  Miscellaneous  Documents. 

House  Reports  of  Committees. 

Hunt,  Gaillard.  The  American  Passport.  Department 
of  State,  Washington,  1898. 

Jay,  John.  The  Correspondence  and  Public  Papers  of 
John  Jay.  Edited  hy  Henry  P.  Johnson.  4  vols.  New 
York  and  London,  1893. 

Jefferson,  Thomas.  The  Writings  of  Thomas  Jefferson. 
Edited  by  Paul  Leicester  Ford,  id  vols.  New  York. 
1892-99. 

Johns  Hopkins  University  Publications. 

Journals  of  Congress.  Printed  by  John  Dunlap.  York- 
town.     1778. 

Kentucky  Palladium. 

King,  Rufus.  Life  and  Correspondence  of  Rufus  King. 
Edited  by  his  grandson,  Chari.es  R.  King,  M.  D.  5 
vols.     New  York,  1894. 

Lalor,  John  J.,  editor.  Cyclopedia  of  Political  Science, 
Political  Economy,  and  of  the  Political  History  of  the 
United  States.    3  vols.     Chicago,  1881-84. 

Lewis,  Sir  George  Cornewall.  An  Essay  on  the  Govern- 
ment of  Dependencies.     Oxford,   1891. 

Locke,  John.  Two  Treatises  on  Civil  Government.  With 
an  Introduction  by  Henry  Morley.    London,  1887. 

Lowell.     The  Hessians  in  the  Revolution. 


304     NATURALIZATION  IN  UNITED  STATES 

Maclay,  William.  Journal  of  William  Maclay,  United 
States  Senator  from  Pennsylvania,  1^89-1791.  New 
York,  1890. 

MacMaster,  John  Bach.  A  History  of  the  People  of  the 
United   States.      5    vols.      New    York,    1883-99. 

Madison,  James.  Letters  and  Other  Writings  of  James 
Madison.    4  vols.     Philadelphia,  1865. 

The  Papers  of  James  Madison.  3  vols.  Washing- 
ton, 1840. 

Nation,  The.     New  York,  1865 — . 

National  Intelligencer. 

New  England  Palladium. 

New  York  Daily  Express,  1838. 

Niles  Register.    Baltimore,  181 1-49. 

Philadelphia  Advertiser. 

Political  Science  Quarterly.    New  York,  1886 — . 

PooRE,  Ben.  Perley,  compiler.  The  Federal  and  State  Con- 
stitutions, Colonial  Charters,  and  Other  Organic  Laivs 
of  the  United  States.  2  parts.  Washington :  Govern- 
ment Printing  Office,  1877. 

Register  of  Debates  in  Congress. 

Rhodes,  James  Ford.  History  of  the  United  States  from 
the  Compromise  of  1850.    4  vols.     New  York,  1893-99. 

Schouler,  James.  History  of  the  United  States  of 
America.    6  vols.    New  York,  1894. 

Secret  Journals  of  the  Acts  and  Proceedings  of  Congress. 
4  vols.    Boston,  1821. 

Senate  Documents. 

Senate  Executive  Documents. 

Senate  Journals. 

Senate  Reports  of  Committees. 

Seward,  William  H.  The  Works  of  William  H.  Seward. 
Edited  by  George  E.  Baker.    5  vols.    Boston,  1884. 

Snow,  Freeman.  Treaties  and  Topics  in  American  Diplo- 
macy.    Boston,  1894. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  305 

Cases  and  Opinions  on  International  Laiv.     Boston, 

1893- 
South  Carolina  Gazette. 

The  Statutes  at  Large  of  the  United  States  of  America. 
Taylor,  Hannis.     The  Origin  and  Growth  of  the  English 

Constitution.    Boston,  1889. 
Thorpe,   Francis   Newton.     A   Constitutional  History   of 

the  American  People,  1776-18 50.     2  vols.     New   York, 

1898. 
Todd,  C.  B.    Life  and  Letters  of  Joel  Barlow. 
Treaties  and  Conventions  Concluded  betzveen   the   United 

States  and  Other  Powers  since  July  4,   1776.     Wash- 
ington, 1889. 
United  States  Supreme  Court  Reports. 
Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography.     Richmond, 

1893-. 
Washington  Federalist. 
Washington,  George.     The  Writings  of  George  IVashing- 

ton.     Edited   by    Worthington    Chauncey    Ford.      14 

vols.     New  York  and  London,  1889. 
Webster,  Prentiss.    A  Treatise  on  the  Law  of  Citizenship 

in  the  United  States.    Albany,  N.  Y.,  1891. 
Lazv    of   Naturalization    in    the    United    States    of 

America  and  of  Other  Countries.     Boston,  1895. 
Wheaton.    History  of  the  Laiv  of  Nations. 
Wilson,  Woodrow.    The  State.    Boston,  1889. 
WooLSEY,  Theodore  D.     Political  Science;    or.  The  State 

Theoretically  and  Practically  Considered.     New   York, 

1886. 


INDEX 


Act  concerning  evidence,  2igi. 

Act  of  1790,  33  f.,  48. 

Act  of  1795,  49  f.,  70. 

Act  of  1798,  72  f. 

Act  of  1802,  97  f. 

Act  of  1813,  1 17  f. 

Act  of  1816,   129  f. 

Act  of  1824,  167  f. 

Act  of  1828,  178  f. 

Adams,    John,    8,    72. 

Adams,  J.  Q.,  9  f.,  161  f.,  165, 
177,   206,   217,   219    f. 

Alien    enemies,    117-28. 

Alien  landholding,  33,  35,  37, 
39,  42,  54,  66,  182,  254,  293. 

Aliens,  73  f.,  170  f.,  176, 
i8i    f.,  212,  294. 

Amendment  to  the  Constitu- 
tion,  147,  300. 

Bancroft,  George,  5,   15. 

Banks,  N.  P.,  281. 

Bibliography,    301. 

Buchanan,  James,   178,  215. 

Calhoun,  John  C,  i32f.,  i6if. 

Certificates,    130,    178   f.,   228, 

234,   245- 
Children   born   abroad,   271    f. 
Cicero,   139,    146. 
Citizenship,   2,  4   f.,  9   f.,    14, 

67,  76,  78  f.,  260  f. ;  state, 

93,   260   f. 
Clay,    Henry,    151. 
Codification,    131,    181,    242. 
Committee:  of  Detail,  21,  26, 

30;   on   Style,   21,   30. 
Confederation,      Articles      of, 

12    f.,    31. 
Congress:    Continental,    i,    2, 

5,  8;  Confederation,   13. 
Constitution,    32. 


Convention,        Constitutional, 

19   f. 
Criminals,    193    f.,    221,    226, 

263    f. 
Declaration  of  Independence, 

I    f.,    149,   241. 
Declaration       of       Intention, 

167    f.,    175,    176,    180,    244, 

293- 
Dicey,    Professor,    10    f. 
District    of    Columbia,    296. 
Douglas,  Stephen  A.,  254. 
Evidence,       act      concerning, 

129  f. 
Expatriation,  50,  54  f.,   115  f., 

120,    134    f.,    241    f. 
Federalist,    14. 
France,    146. 

Franklin,   Benjamin,    12,   28  f. 
Gallatin,   Albert,  83.  87. 
Giddings,    Joshua    R.,    249. 
Great    Britain,    9,     141,     143, 

153,    164,    186   f. 
Hamilton,    Alexander,    3,    22, 

98-105. 
Harrison,      William      Henry, 

203    f. 
Hessians,  5  f. 
Immigration,   23.   38,   81,    167, 

184     f.,     264     f.,     279,     286, 

295- 
Intercitizenship,    9    f.,    12    f. 
Investigations,    227. 
Jefferson,    Thomas,    6,    97    f.. 

134   f- 
Kansas,   297. 
Know-Nothings,   278   f.     (See 

also  Native  Americanism.) 
Levin.  Mr.,  248,  258,  263,  278. 
Loughborough,   Lord,   9. 


307 


3o8 


INDEX 


Louisiana,    207. 

Maclay's  Journal,  43   f. 

Madison,  James,  14,  i8f.,  23f., 
27,  30,  36,  40,  49,  53  f-,  57, 
59,    61,    63,    118,    119. 

Massachusetts,  188,  247,  269, 
298. 

Michigan,  163  f. 

Minors,  167,  202,  237,  244, 
286. 

Missouri,   206. 

Moral  character,   53. 

Native  Americanism,  184  f., 
255,  269 ;  national  conven- 
tion of,  247  ;  Philadelphia 
platform  of,  289.  ( See 
also    Know-Nothings.) 

Native  citizens,  131  f.,  258, 
271,  299. 

Naturalization :  by  England, 
89  note,  161  :  by  France,  55 
note,  241  ;  by  Hebrews,  220  ; 
by  special  act,  169 ;  by 
states,  18,  85,  87,  102  note, 
126,  134,  258  f. ;  colonial, 
17  ;  fees  for,  174,  229,  232f., 
24s  ;  fraudulent,  222  f.,  242, 
245,  256  f. ;  methods  of, 
227  f.,  243  ;  of  Chinese, 
287 ;  political  committees 
of,  230  f. ;  progressive,  36, 
39  f.,  66  ;  wholesale,  224, 
229  f. 

Naturalization  Society  of  New 
York,   231. 

New   York,   260,   266,   269. 


iXiles  Register,  185  f. 

Oath   of  allegiance,    1,   2. 

Oregon,  296. 

Paupers,   193  f.,  226,  263  f. 

Petitions,    no   f.,    122,    171    f., 

J92    f.,    204,    215,    217    f., 

247,  264  f.,  277. 
Pinckney,    Charles,    139. 
Pinckney's  plan,   20. 
Polacre    Ship    "Adams,"    case 

of,    139. 
Privileges,    60,    287. 
Publishing,    131,   205. 
Randolph,  Edmund,    18   f.,  28. 
Repatriation,   54   f.,    159. 
Revolutionary    War,    5. 
Rho'de   Island,   265,   280. 
Seward,  William  H.,  274,  276. 
Slavery,   61  f.,   249,  289^,   295. 
Suffrage,  37,  41,  76,  79,  253f., 

280,   287,   292   f. 
T.  C.  of  Northumberland,  141. 
Territories,    68    f. 
Titles,    56   f. 
Tories,  i,  3. 
Twenty-one    years'    residence, 

198,   203,    215    f.,   219,    247, 

256,    278    f.,    293. 
Vattel,    140. 

Virginia,   134,   136,   150,  162. 
Washington,    George,    33,    66. 
Webster,    Daniel,    272. 
Williams,  Isaac,  case  of,  i38f. 
Women,  244,  272  f. 
Wisconsin,    288. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 

This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


^    JW287I 


<iP9/i(it 


PE8    8 


1371 


DISCHARGE 

JAN  2  5  197! 


E  Wtf 


^ppOPm? 


Form  L9-Series  4939 


i'f^ 


iL. 


3   1 1 58  00023   0598 


JK 
f85^ 


UC  SOJ^HERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    001  194  604 


